> And what's scandalous is that NAI has OS X and XP-ready versions, but won't ship them.
We need some laws that force work into the public domain if it wont be exploited for the private domain. I'm sick of companies keeping what will go into the dustbin. This is another example of how too much private interest can/create/ inefficiency in a market rather than reduce it.
Of course, I respect that the work in question would probably have to pass some criterium whereby its release into the public domain would not cause significant damage to the company in question (if the company is to live on), but surely we can't believe that scenarios like this outweigh the benifits of laws forcing companies to push work they lose interest/money in back into the public domain?
On the server side
on
How to Save PGP
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
What about the possibility of PGP technology being a part of the next major upgrade of open internet protocals (ie, POP, SMTP, etc.. )
It seems to be that possibly losing out on the client-side 'niceness' that a commercial PGP implementation provides could be a non issue if the next round of standards include support for providing PGP mechanisms as part of their protocols (not that you'd HAVE to use PGP, but that PGP would somewhere in the protocol if you wanted to use it.)
That would reduce the need to depend on the never-surefire client market penetration in order to see widespead and longterm usage of PGP as a means of protecting ones privacy.
I've always felt open protocols make the best vehicles for propogating public-interest technology. That way, you dont need [Mailclient] + [PGP intergrated client] but [Mailclient that supports Next Gen Protocol X] where one of X's functionality sets uses a private/public key encryption scheme. Not sure what the likelihood of that happening is, tho, both from the perspective of when we'll outgrow the current crop of protocols, whether the new crop will be open enough to get public interests into the design phase, and whether the creators of said protocol would even think it would be a good idea to include a PGP layer in the protocol.:)
It's not p2p (misnomer in this use ANYHOW, but what the hell) because you are not searching for content based on content. You are hooking up with someone who can offer you something *only after you connect with them*.
p2p, in popular use terms, is more of a 'file search and retrieve' platform rather than a 'find your friends and then share the files you have with them'. Can you use AIM to search for files?
Seems to mean that he means that exclusive rights should only be granted if nobody complains about it. That is, if people complain that so and so doesn't deserve such and such rights to profits arising from invention, then they shouldn't.
Of course, in true free-market capitalist style, now we have a huge industry who's sole job is to prove or disprove the validity of said complaints. So the complaints grow, so the industry grows, but of course, that industry also aligns itself counter to its original purpose - strengnthening the hold on those exclusive rights. (Not surprising, as the one with the money to pay for the legal might in this scenario is the original potentially illegitimate copyright holder, whos interests would include extending the life of copyrights.)
On a side note, its a good example of how capitalism doesn't always have a self balancing mechanism, because new markets can form to solve problems that may or may not have been solved by the 'self-correction' mechanism that free-marketers claim is supposed to happen every time in the original market. In this case, where the content market may have fought between the effectiveness of different kinds of copyright terms, it has become more profitable to the economy as a whole to create a new market to deal with the problems arising from the social and economic problems of the current copyright law. So the original problem is left untreated while the 'doctors' get entrenched in the industry and the problem becomes 'neccessary' to a whole wack of people who've spent their lives dealing with the flak that arises out of current copyright law. Completely free markets encourage faulty legislation! (I realize I might just get flamed for that contention.:)
PGP encryption could use a nice high profile use case where its use saved the ass of someone the average joe could relate to.
I really dont think that the average consumer is concerned about having their private messages intercepted. (The logic is usually: "I dont do anything bad. Hey, waitaminute. Why are/you/ so interested... ?")
That being said, I'm not surprised that it was difficult to find a buyer for them. The market really hasn't encountered the high profile case that justifies wide spread deployment of PGP use. I think.. ?
> Repeat after me, class: Intellectual "property" is not property . The whole stupid term only came into use within the past two decades
If you're claiming that copyrights were not sold or transferred in a commiditized fashion before 20 years ago, I think thats flat out wrong.
http://www.publaw.com/1976.html:
Under the Copyright Act of 1909 the ownership of a copyright could only be transferred in whole, and not in part. If the copyright owner assigned anything less than the entire copyright such transfer was only recognized as a license and not an assignment. The owner of the entire copyright was called the "copyright proprietor."
Seems to suggest that even the 1908 copyright law included the right to transfer (only in whole, not in part), a copyright, thus, effectively making it property.
Whether or not we use the stupid IP term or not doesn't change that copyrights were transferrable by law long LONG before you claim they were.
Now, what constitutes infringement is a whole other thing. I think 50 years, period is sufficient. But don't let your distaste for the current legal and social climate of copyright issues get in the way of recognizing that even if we've 'swung too far' towards the private interests with respect to the private vs. public implications of copyright law, copyrights have long since enjoyed the ability to be transferred to another party. Thus, it is property, and has been for a long time. As it relates to the parent post, the fact that a copyright can be transferred via a will plus the ever-growing copyright lifetime, allows heirs (as the parent poster noted) to live off the fruits of their parents/grandparents/etc. I think it's wrong, but that doesn't mean that it hasn't been that way for a long time.
Not true. Copyright is a property that can be bought, sold, traded. It's a commodity, and as such, can be passed via the will; you know, that thing you pass your private property down to.
It's not always their heirs, anyhow. Sometimes the copyright goes to a good friend or whatnot.
I will admit that I'm not sure that copyrights, initially, were considered to be private property that could be bought or sold. It would be interesting to know...
Same thing. The article only means that its important to understand that any 'protection' by the government should be 'retaliatory'. In other words, they wouldn't actually/gaurd/ your properly, but they were obliged to enforce your property rights via punishment to those who sought to take what property is rightfully yours.
Think about it. Of course, anyone can storm Bill Gates' house any time or day. Sure. The government aint protecting his property. But/do/ try, and you'll find out what 'protection from force or fraud' means to the one who's committing it. It's called state enforced proerty rights.
> Uh, no, that's an indication that many people like getting things for free more than they like having to pay money for them.
How can you possibly back this statement up, when you consider that piracy is not as rampant here in NA. Clearly, those who can afford the full price are more likely to deam it fair, and pay it. My point was that, between free -> X% -> 'unfair' price, unless X% is offered, people will naturally go for the free. But if your argument is to be accepted, nobody would pay for software, as it is easily available for free. You still cant disprove that its easy to scam the system, and yet, for whatever reason (I condend the desire not to freeload coupled with the desire to live with minimal social friction), people volountarily do not.
As for your neighbour, I dont think you would feel as scammed if he was a janitor. I mean, anyone that complains that someone who works in a lower wage job is getting a better deal than them obviously doesn't want to be doing what they are doing, so tough luck. Being able to buy things should not be the main motivator behind having people work. It sickens me that so many people work so many jobs they couldn't care less about just so they can afford product X that their neighbour cant. How does this benifit anybody, in the long run? Isn't this tantamount to selling out? If you complain that your neighbour can get something at a lower price, (so long as the lower priced commodity, such as in software, can be offered without damaging the profits of the producer to such a level that the producer can no loger turn a profit that allows them to grow their business at a reasonable (not maximal) rate), then I'd say, "Well, why not work their job? Then you could get it at a lower rate." I think most people would answer, "Well, I dont want to work their job," and I could only retort, "So what exactly are you complaining about, other than you clearly have a strong desire to be more materially wealthy than your neighbour?" Greed is not a character trait I like, despite the fact that its the single most encouraged human trait in a free-market economy (ie, the goal is to get wealthier, and hopefully wealthier than those around you.)
Sure, there will always be scammers, but to comprimise the entire system and to sacrifice the situation of a high number of people who ligitamitely have a case for having access to a commodity at a price they can afford in order to prevent a minority of selfish scammers is really just cutting off the nose to spite your face, economically speaking. How do you think people feel? "Shit, here we are. Producer X could offer us product Y at prices we could afford, but the people who can afford it now are just complaining that they'd also want the product for the same price we do. Funny tho, they dont seem to want our low salaries, though... "
It seems to be an awfully juvenile approach to me, although we must remember that the current state of affairs are essentially what the eceonomically able want, so it's not entirely surprising to see a complete lack of representation by those unable to vote with their wallet in making the system more equal. I'd be pretty naive to not understand why things are the way they are - I simply question that it's the best way. I certainly have no problem letting number of unethical scammers scam their way through life for the benifit of populations of people with a legitimate case for questioning why a system that should be benifiting them is doing anything but.
Capitalism, in its current form, creates scarcity, because what could be available to many (if you can buy that not everyone would shift to the scamming way, cause they'd recognize that would defeat the ability of the producer to produce the thing they want in the first place) is limited to those who offer the top price, while sacrificing the wants of many in order to provent abuse of said system by a few. Finally, we already have some level of abuse in the current system (price fixing by corperations, etc) - I have a very hard time believing that people would rather have the power to abuse in the hands of the already-wealth rather than in hands of the needy. The only thing we need is to reform the government for the people again, as it used to be, and thus we would be able to enforce this 'just deserts' upon the producers. Yeah, we might not innovate and develop as fast, but at least things would be more economically equal. Many psycological studies seem to show that gaining an advantage over your neighbour holds little or no psycological upside, while not having access to commodities and resources that your neighbour can afford leads to a significant decrease in psycological and emotional happiness. Which is to say, you would only feel bad if your neighbour was richer than you, and scammed. I content that if, indeed, he was richer, he would be buying things that you could not afford, and that this would have a more significant long term downside on your faith and level of participation in your community.
As for the distributed set pricing scheme:
> What keeps one side from holding the other hostage until they get the price they want?
Thats the whole point. If the producers 'hold something hostage' (other than basic needs like food, water, shelter), then they cannot sell it. Same for the consumers. It is in both parties interest to come to price. If an agreeable price cannot be found, well, guess what, there's no market for it. In other words, the top 3% of the earners in a soceity cannot 'hijack' a market solely for their own purposes. Everyone is not equal, because they are making different amounts, but a society on a whole must determine a fair price for something that takes into account the social aspects of the commidity or services' presense in the market. I recently heard a local politican, in championing private health care say, "I can get an MRI for my cat at 2am, but not for my wife." I nearly barfed. How many people in Canada can afford an MRI for their cat at 2am? Do most people really believe those who can afford MRI's for their cats also deserve better access to health care? No way. Without my job, this system would not work, but you dont see me demanding availability to MRIs for my cat at 2am. If our entire population thinks that money could be better spent elsewhere, then my economic system should have checks and balances that allow the 'anti-market' to also have a say in where resources are going.
> the US/Canada's current free-market system seems way more practical to me
Except Canada's income gap has grown and grown under free-trade. GDP goes up overall, but the non-stressed part is that only a select few participants in our economy are actually being rewarded for it. Same goes for the US. Its practical to us, cause we're (well I'm) well off. But sevices to remote parts of Canada and US have only seen their relative standard-of-living and access-to-equal-quality-commodities equality to the larger metropolitan areas disappear.
Yeah, what he said! (And I'm the parent poster in question, too.:)
I certainly didn't provide the stats for any other reason than potential food for thought. I'm certainly not saying the sky is falling, although its hard to disprove that humans are responsible for extinctions for reasons other than over hunting in a way that no species has been responsible for other species' extinction before.
> Who decides what the "fair" price is? If we let the consumer decide the price (by threatening to just pirate the software if they don't get the price they want), do you think that would be any "fairer"?
But here's the irony, huh? By fair, I mean for the consumer. If people threaten to pirate, instead of forking over the full price, I'd say thats a pretty good indication that your consumers deem the price unreasonable, for whatever reason. Now software is a special case, in which a copy of the original can be made and spread around in a market that has rejected the produder-set-price, which is one of the reasons software producers can get away with charging so much. Obviously, there is where the whole hub-bub of piracy comes from. Is software like a car? No. It can't be 'stolen', in the sense that the producer cannot still sell the original product. Of course, when # of pirated copies == # of possible customers, you get 0 revenue, but human behaviour does not allow this to happen because it is a fundamental human value to want to give something back in return for a product or service. Anyone who tells you humans are out to get anything they can for free, and will do so if they can, is lying. Jwalking doesn't work that way, littering doesn't work that way. Pyramid scams don't work that way. There are countless examples where humans can get away with more than they choose to.
Photoshop isn't a jaguar. It's not a luxery. It's pretty much the defacto standard of the industry, which is why those with money deem the expensive price fair.. cause they need it. But if it were not pirated, the chances are many of the customers who feel the current asking price is fair would suddenly think it's not worth it, because it wouldn't be an industry standard. It's entirely possible that if Adobe lowered their prices by maybe, 10 or 20%, they would make less money, but reduce piracy many-fold, if they can find the price that the market will bear. While you might argue that that is not a favourable outcome, because Adobe reduces its profit margin, simply repeat to yourself (several times a day) that the economy is designed to benifit everyone, not a select few. An economy that naturally benifits those who are already eceonomically successful defeats the purpose of an economy, because it only benifits a small segment of people living within its rules. So to me, the victory is that more people can get access to a service or product that Adobe makes, while Adobe continues to turn a profit and thus fund future endevours and growth, if not at the pace they may have been able to 'innovate' had they limited their market to a minority of the potential market. We are so focused on growth and profits that we mistakeningly tend to use them as measures of success of an economy over the benifits that those who live within the economy get. IMHO, and many would agree, that a company making less money (but still profitable), but able to offer their products at prices a larger consumer base can afford is a better measuring stick of a 'proper' economy than the cut-and-dried maximize-margins approach of classical economics. A shift to this belief by those successful under the current system would finally end the empty promise of, "Trust us, in the long run, everyone will benifit under this economy." Northen Canada wouldn't have mail if our mail providers focused solely on profit margin over maximizing access to the service. (And make no mistake, our mail system is still profitable.. just probably not as profitable as UPS might be if they catered only to the major metropolitan areas of Canada.)
> Of course if there were a way to make everyone pay what the sofware is worth to *them*, it would be the ideal situation. But how do you do that?
Polyani, a oft-overlooked post-war economist and socialist (not in the centralized communism sense.. its a shame this is such a dirty misrepresented word these days) suggested that each commodity category would have two state-enforced boards, one of consumers, one of producers. Nothing could be sold until the board of consuemrs agreed with the board of producers on a price. This would result in a price that the 'market', meaning, the population felt comfortable with, not a profitable market segment. Companies would be unable to jack their prices for 10% of their elegible users to squeeze the most profits from those who could afford and justify the top price. (In the marketing world, the rule of thumb is that 10% of your consumers is 70% of your profits, which is why the whole 'vote with your wallet' thing simply does not work. In reality, comapnies really only need 1 in 10 of their active consumers.)
Anyhow, it's basically set pricing, but a decentalized machanism for setting that price. Cuba and Russia both didn't work, because the economic decisions were centralized, and thus not exposed to the actual in-reality market forces present when the prices were set.
That story that you linked too has nothing to do with Adobe not producing more software. They are just pulling out of some markets. The funny part is, Adobe software will still get pirated ad nauseum in those areas, but Adobe will save money on actually trying to push legit sales plans in those geographies.
Really, nobody is losing out in Adobe pulling out, and, if anything, Adobe will save costs by focusing on the markets that deem that Adobe products are priced fairly.
Meanwhile, they will still reap the benifits of industry entrenchment and distribution coverage that the priracy market encourages, so the only thing they are losing out on is the impossible-to-proove-that-it-actually-really-exist s markets in Asia. In other words, nobody can proove that Adobe would have had a profitable market in those geographics, even if they were able to reduce piracy to 0%
My guess is that its a little of column A and a little of column B. Some piracy is always good. Too much, from your entire consumer base, and you dont get any revenue to continue development. Too little, and you lose out on a (admittedly illegal) market that does wonders to entrench products in industries. Like hillfinger, who tells retailers not to crack down on shoplifters, Adobe probably recogizes (tho cant admit to their shareholders, if they are public) that a little bit of piracy goes a long way. After all, I've seen tons of sales stem from adults with money asking kids with pirated software what they should buy. Sometimes, these piraters do more for a products sales than the company's actual sales dept.
I've always dismissed the argument that piracy or theft == potential market. People have no problem purchasing things at fair prices (indeed, we see in this story that college kids are more likely to buy at prices they can justify); but make no mistake that if they feel the price is unfair, they will probably seek to attain the commodity for free if they can. I have no idea what average salaries vs the price of Adobe software is in those Asian markets. Perhaps it was very expensive in those markets due to standards of living, etc, and what Adobe was asking. Piraters are often just people who wouldn't mind offering an unknown % of the asking price, if only the producer could offer vaiable pricing. The relative success of education discounts as a means of reducing piracy only goes to proove this point.
Don't treat responsible citizens who do illegal things as criminals - ask why those responsible citizens feel they are left with no choice but to commit illegal acts. Usually, you'll find that even if you can make a profit on a smaller group of wealthy consumers, its in your best interests to find ways of additionally offering your product at viable pricing scheme to other markets. The trick is to keep consumers happy when they're aware that the price differs based on your situation. In this 'get a leg up' economy, its a very tricky balancing act.
There's always the fact that murders have always plagued humans. We simply tend to lock into the 'new' angles of sensational stories. In this case, a connection with videogames was very obvious, and it suited the already growing anti-violent-videogames sentiment at the time.
I tend to look at these things, and shrug. Nuthing new. Humans will always have a few who fall through the cracks and are forced to scream out for attention and revenge for perceived wrongs; its just too bad we strive so hard to 'categorize' the influences instead of trying to understand the less material catalysts behind their physcological state at the time of the tragedy.
I was teased, ridiculed, and ostricized from school, and I thoguht about suicide more than a few times. To me, it doesn't seem like that far of a leap from what these kids to from the psycological states that thousands upon thousands of outcasts suffer from school. Their reaction was out of line, their actions uncondonable, but I cannot simply dismiss the fact that popular school goers get away with psycological torture that is far more of an influence on what these kids did than video games.
And if you don't understand, thats half my point. Humans look for the bright red flags that say, "Look at me, I caused people to do this," and usually dismiss what outcasts are consistantly saying: "It fucking hurts to be hated by so many people." You have to take the extent of the pain caused by seemingly flippant adolescent peer to peer behaviour on faith.
That was my under-the-table meaning.:) I'm a firm beliver that each new innovation decreases our ability to keep 'track' of our world, and make sane decisions on how we feel it should be run under a democracy. In short: there is so much shit, no one can know it all, and thus the axioms of the free-market and democracy fall apart. Scary.
Yes, laws being put forth are indeed unconsitutional. However, they have nothing to do with the 'size' of government, and everything to do with the 'size' of companies who can bribe the government. Reduce the amount of money any particular group of private interests can make, and you reduce the likelyhood of 'purchasing' laws. Of course, Disney has been doing this for years, but we're really approaching some sort of 'make-or-break' point here. I've never really been interested in living in the US, but these days, the very thought sends shivers down my spine. I don't think its your government, I think it's the size of your companies, the size of the pot of gold to be won (tho I think that the pot of gold is largely imaginary, part of the mystic prize of unmitigated free-markets), and the complete lack of any kind of regulations banning private influence on government.
Incidentally, you might be interested to know that the closest thing to total-free-market libertarianism that has occurred so far in western society (UK, 18th century) resulted in MASS poverty, and the price of bread rising above levels the vast majority of the population could afford. Under totally free markets, people 'compete' until there is no time/money left over after production to inject back into the economy or use to enjoy said fruits of the system.
Most countries that have seen their GDP rise over the last 10 years (India, Japan) have done so using decidedly anti-free-market tactics (choosing and awarding development to oganizations that are more likely to help the economy in the long run than provide the 'cheapest and best' in the short run), and of all the countries in the EU that have been placed under WTO sactioned IMF reforms, where everything has gone free-market, only Poland has seen their GDP rise slightly. All other 12 countries have seen their GDP fall under true freemarket reforms; even the WTO admits nothing has worked out as planned in their 2000 annual report....
So where does that leave you? With a decent system, some things to fix, and a immediate need to cleanse your political system of big business brown nosers. Life wasn't so bad in the mom'and'pop days, no matter what these huge corperations want you to believe. If you can find a non-violent way to restore your government to being more pro-people than pro-business, and temper your fears of market regulation (you dont want total regulation, of course, that doesn't work, but 'checks and balances' when things (read: MS, or RIAA) get out of hand, much like the checks and balances that supposedly prevent any one political body from owning all political decisions), you might have the greatest chance of stabilizing the situation.
> Can someone please give me the slashdot defination of "hypocrite"?
Well, for starters, someone who reads, and then posts to a site for free, complaining about having to pay for it (how much did that post costs you?), is a hypocrite.
Nuff said. I'm more and more depressed by the day at the complete lack of desire by ANYONE to MAKE ANYTHING NEW anymore. Shit, everyone seems so caught up in making sure they can own shit ad nauseum that the whole idea of creating quality art seems to have gone out the window.
> Wouldn't a truly capitalistic company welcome competition so it can crush them in the marketplace? Or is it just fear?
That was certainly my point. Obviously, if MS is all about commercialization and capitalism, why are they so quick to poo on efforts to create competiting architectures. Its the usual story: MS champions collaberation only when they're first to the party.
As for whether it's fear, I prefer to think of it as security. So long as you dont/have/ competitors, you dont have the possibility of needing to fear anything. It simply removes any possibility of having to deal with superior solutions, which is usually what current market-champions want. It's porbably the single weakest aspect of capitalism is that once you get to the top, you can use your might by virtue of success to coast. It's how capitalism turns full circle and starts eating it's own tail. See: Disney, MS, communist governments..;)
>"there was this notion that the world should be offered an alternative"
What he's implying is that he thinks that its silly that there should be an alternative to passport (ie, he thinks anyone doing what passport is doing should join efforts with MS.) Ergo, I didn't his represent his implication with my paraphrasing. I omitted what he felt should be done instead of creating a competing architecture, but any idiot could figure out the gist of it:
MS: "Hey! We're doing that too! C'mon, we'll do it together.. just position yourself, right under my thumb here... "
Slashdot Mirror
> And what's scandalous is that NAI has OS X and XP-ready versions, but won't ship them.
/create/ inefficiency in a market rather than reduce it.
We need some laws that force work into the public domain if it wont be exploited for the private domain. I'm sick of companies keeping what will go into the dustbin. This is another example of how too much private interest can
Of course, I respect that the work in question would probably have to pass some criterium whereby its release into the public domain would not cause significant damage to the company in question (if the company is to live on), but surely we can't believe that scenarios like this outweigh the benifits of laws forcing companies to push work they lose interest/money in back into the public domain?
What about the possibility of PGP technology being a part of the next major upgrade of open internet protocals (ie, POP, SMTP, etc .. )
:)
It seems to be that possibly losing out on the client-side 'niceness' that a commercial PGP implementation provides could be a non issue if the next round of standards include support for providing PGP mechanisms as part of their protocols (not that you'd HAVE to use PGP, but that PGP would somewhere in the protocol if you wanted to use it.)
That would reduce the need to depend on the never-surefire client market penetration in order to see widespead and longterm usage of PGP as a means of protecting ones privacy.
I've always felt open protocols make the best vehicles for propogating public-interest technology. That way, you dont need [Mailclient] + [PGP intergrated client] but [Mailclient that supports Next Gen Protocol X] where one of X's functionality sets uses a private/public key encryption scheme. Not sure what the likelihood of that happening is, tho, both from the perspective of when we'll outgrow the current crop of protocols, whether the new crop will be open enough to get public interests into the design phase, and whether the creators of said protocol would even think it would be a good idea to include a PGP layer in the protocol.
It's not p2p (misnomer in this use ANYHOW, but what the hell) because you are not searching for content based on content. You are hooking up with someone who can offer you something *only after you connect with them*.
p2p, in popular use terms, is more of a 'file search and retrieve' platform rather than a 'find your friends and then share the files you have with them'. Can you use AIM to search for files?
Seems to mean that he means that exclusive rights should only be granted if nobody complains about it. That is, if people complain that so and so doesn't deserve such and such rights to profits arising from invention, then they shouldn't.
:)
Of course, in true free-market capitalist style, now we have a huge industry who's sole job is to prove or disprove the validity of said complaints. So the complaints grow, so the industry grows, but of course, that industry also aligns itself counter to its original purpose - strengnthening the hold on those exclusive rights. (Not surprising, as the one with the money to pay for the legal might in this scenario is the original potentially illegitimate copyright holder, whos interests would include extending the life of copyrights.)
On a side note, its a good example of how capitalism doesn't always have a self balancing mechanism, because new markets can form to solve problems that may or may not have been solved by the 'self-correction' mechanism that free-marketers claim is supposed to happen every time in the original market. In this case, where the content market may have fought between the effectiveness of different kinds of copyright terms, it has become more profitable to the economy as a whole to create a new market to deal with the problems arising from the social and economic problems of the current copyright law. So the original problem is left untreated while the 'doctors' get entrenched in the industry and the problem becomes 'neccessary' to a whole wack of people who've spent their lives dealing with the flak that arises out of current copyright law. Completely free markets encourage faulty legislation! (I realize I might just get flamed for that contention.
PGP encryption could use a nice high profile use case where its use saved the ass of someone the average joe could relate to.
/you/ so interested ... ?")
.. ?
I really dont think that the average consumer is concerned about having their private messages intercepted. (The logic is usually: "I dont do anything bad. Hey, waitaminute. Why are
That being said, I'm not surprised that it was difficult to find a buyer for them. The market really hasn't encountered the high profile case that justifies wide spread deployment of PGP use. I think
> Repeat after me, class: Intellectual "property" is not property . The whole stupid term only came into use within the past two decades
If you're claiming that copyrights were not sold or transferred in a commiditized fashion before 20 years ago, I think thats flat out wrong.
http://www.publaw.com/1976.html:
Under the Copyright Act of 1909 the ownership of a copyright could only be transferred in whole, and not in part. If the copyright owner assigned anything less than the entire copyright such transfer was only recognized as a license and not an assignment. The owner of the entire copyright was called the "copyright proprietor."
Seems to suggest that even the 1908 copyright law included the right to transfer (only in whole, not in part), a copyright, thus, effectively making it property.
Whether or not we use the stupid IP term or not doesn't change that copyrights were transferrable by law long LONG before you claim they were.
Now, what constitutes infringement is a whole other thing. I think 50 years, period is sufficient. But don't let your distaste for the current legal and social climate of copyright issues get in the way of recognizing that even if we've 'swung too far' towards the private interests with respect to the private vs. public implications of copyright law, copyrights have long since enjoyed the ability to be transferred to another party. Thus, it is property, and has been for a long time. As it relates to the parent post, the fact that a copyright can be transferred via a will plus the ever-growing copyright lifetime, allows heirs (as the parent poster noted) to live off the fruits of their parents/grandparents/etc. I think it's wrong, but that doesn't mean that it hasn't been that way for a long time.
Not true. Copyright is a property that can be bought, sold, traded. It's a commodity, and as such, can be passed via the will; you know, that thing you pass your private property down to.
...
It's not always their heirs, anyhow. Sometimes the copyright goes to a good friend or whatnot.
I will admit that I'm not sure that copyrights, initially, were considered to be private property that could be bought or sold. It would be interesting to know
Same thing. The article only means that its important to understand that any 'protection' by the government should be 'retaliatory'. In other words, they wouldn't actually /gaurd/ your properly, but they were obliged to enforce your property rights via punishment to those who sought to take what property is rightfully yours.
/do/ try, and you'll find out what 'protection from force or fraud' means to the one who's committing it. It's called state enforced proerty rights.
Think about it. Of course, anyone can storm Bill Gates' house any time or day. Sure. The government aint protecting his property. But
So it's just semantics.
well, God was certainly alot more popular in the stone age, so I'd say you're the chronologically displaced one
</cheapshot>
Argh, I couldn't resist.
> Uh, no, that's an indication that many people like getting things for free more than they like having to pay money for them.
... "
How can you possibly back this statement up, when you consider that piracy is not as rampant here in NA. Clearly, those who can afford the full price are more likely to deam it fair, and pay it. My point was that, between free -> X% -> 'unfair' price, unless X% is offered, people will naturally go for the free. But if your argument is to be accepted, nobody would pay for software, as it is easily available for free. You still cant disprove that its easy to scam the system, and yet, for whatever reason (I condend the desire not to freeload coupled with the desire to live with minimal social friction), people volountarily do not.
As for your neighbour, I dont think you would feel as scammed if he was a janitor. I mean, anyone that complains that someone who works in a lower wage job is getting a better deal than them obviously doesn't want to be doing what they are doing, so tough luck. Being able to buy things should not be the main motivator behind having people work. It sickens me that so many people work so many jobs they couldn't care less about just so they can afford product X that their neighbour cant. How does this benifit anybody, in the long run? Isn't this tantamount to selling out? If you complain that your neighbour can get something at a lower price, (so long as the lower priced commodity, such as in software, can be offered without damaging the profits of the producer to such a level that the producer can no loger turn a profit that allows them to grow their business at a reasonable (not maximal) rate), then I'd say, "Well, why not work their job? Then you could get it at a lower rate." I think most people would answer, "Well, I dont want to work their job," and I could only retort, "So what exactly are you complaining about, other than you clearly have a strong desire to be more materially wealthy than your neighbour?" Greed is not a character trait I like, despite the fact that its the single most encouraged human trait in a free-market economy (ie, the goal is to get wealthier, and hopefully wealthier than those around you.)
Sure, there will always be scammers, but to comprimise the entire system and to sacrifice the situation of a high number of people who ligitamitely have a case for having access to a commodity at a price they can afford in order to prevent a minority of selfish scammers is really just cutting off the nose to spite your face, economically speaking. How do you think people feel? "Shit, here we are. Producer X could offer us product Y at prices we could afford, but the people who can afford it now are just complaining that they'd also want the product for the same price we do. Funny tho, they dont seem to want our low salaries, though
It seems to be an awfully juvenile approach to me, although we must remember that the current state of affairs are essentially what the eceonomically able want, so it's not entirely surprising to see a complete lack of representation by those unable to vote with their wallet in making the system more equal. I'd be pretty naive to not understand why things are the way they are - I simply question that it's the best way. I certainly have no problem letting number of unethical scammers scam their way through life for the benifit of populations of people with a legitimate case for questioning why a system that should be benifiting them is doing anything but.
Capitalism, in its current form, creates scarcity, because what could be available to many (if you can buy that not everyone would shift to the scamming way, cause they'd recognize that would defeat the ability of the producer to produce the thing they want in the first place) is limited to those who offer the top price, while sacrificing the wants of many in order to provent abuse of said system by a few. Finally, we already have some level of abuse in the current system (price fixing by corperations, etc) - I have a very hard time believing that people would rather have the power to abuse in the hands of the already-wealth rather than in hands of the needy. The only thing we need is to reform the government for the people again, as it used to be, and thus we would be able to enforce this 'just deserts' upon the producers. Yeah, we might not innovate and develop as fast, but at least things would be more economically equal. Many psycological studies seem to show that gaining an advantage over your neighbour holds little or no psycological upside, while not having access to commodities and resources that your neighbour can afford leads to a significant decrease in psycological and emotional happiness. Which is to say, you would only feel bad if your neighbour was richer than you, and scammed. I content that if, indeed, he was richer, he would be buying things that you could not afford, and that this would have a more significant long term downside on your faith and level of participation in your community.
As for the distributed set pricing scheme:
> What keeps one side from holding the other hostage until they get the price they want?
Thats the whole point. If the producers 'hold something hostage' (other than basic needs like food, water, shelter), then they cannot sell it. Same for the consumers. It is in both parties interest to come to price. If an agreeable price cannot be found, well, guess what, there's no market for it. In other words, the top 3% of the earners in a soceity cannot 'hijack' a market solely for their own purposes. Everyone is not equal, because they are making different amounts, but a society on a whole must determine a fair price for something that takes into account the social aspects of the commidity or services' presense in the market. I recently heard a local politican, in championing private health care say, "I can get an MRI for my cat at 2am, but not for my wife." I nearly barfed. How many people in Canada can afford an MRI for their cat at 2am? Do most people really believe those who can afford MRI's for their cats also deserve better access to health care? No way. Without my job, this system would not work, but you dont see me demanding availability to MRIs for my cat at 2am. If our entire population thinks that money could be better spent elsewhere, then my economic system should have checks and balances that allow the 'anti-market' to also have a say in where resources are going.
> the US/Canada's current free-market system seems way more practical to me
Except Canada's income gap has grown and grown under free-trade. GDP goes up overall, but the non-stressed part is that only a select few participants in our economy are actually being rewarded for it. Same goes for the US. Its practical to us, cause we're (well I'm) well off. But sevices to remote parts of Canada and US have only seen their relative standard-of-living and access-to-equal-quality-commodities equality to the larger metropolitan areas disappear.
Yeah, what he said! (And I'm the parent poster in question, too. :)
I certainly didn't provide the stats for any other reason than potential food for thought. I'm certainly not saying the sky is falling, although its hard to disprove that humans are responsible for extinctions for reasons other than over hunting in a way that no species has been responsible for other species' extinction before.
Why must we count everything?! We're like Midas, only everything we touch seems to disappear.
:P
I think the stats are:
???? -> 1900 - 75 species extinct
1900 -> 1970 - 75 more species exitinct
1970 -> now - 75,000 species extinct
Do we really wanna find them all?
> Who decides what the "fair" price is? If we let the consumer decide the price (by threatening to just pirate the software if they don't get the price they want), do you think that would be any "fairer"?
.. cause they need it. But if it were not pirated, the chances are many of the customers who feel the current asking price is fair would suddenly think it's not worth it, because it wouldn't be an industry standard. It's entirely possible that if Adobe lowered their prices by maybe, 10 or 20%, they would make less money, but reduce piracy many-fold, if they can find the price that the market will bear. While you might argue that that is not a favourable outcome, because Adobe reduces its profit margin, simply repeat to yourself (several times a day) that the economy is designed to benifit everyone, not a select few. An economy that naturally benifits those who are already eceonomically successful defeats the purpose of an economy, because it only benifits a small segment of people living within its rules. So to me, the victory is that more people can get access to a service or product that Adobe makes, while Adobe continues to turn a profit and thus fund future endevours and growth, if not at the pace they may have been able to 'innovate' had they limited their market to a minority of the potential market. We are so focused on growth and profits that we mistakeningly tend to use them as measures of success of an economy over the benifits that those who live within the economy get. IMHO, and many would agree, that a company making less money (but still profitable), but able to offer their products at prices a larger consumer base can afford is a better measuring stick of a 'proper' economy than the cut-and-dried maximize-margins approach of classical economics. A shift to this belief by those successful under the current system would finally end the empty promise of, "Trust us, in the long run, everyone will benifit under this economy." Northen Canada wouldn't have mail if our mail providers focused solely on profit margin over maximizing access to the service. (And make no mistake, our mail system is still profitable .. just probably not as profitable as UPS might be if they catered only to the major metropolitan areas of Canada.)
.. its a shame this is such a dirty misrepresented word these days) suggested that each commodity category would have two state-enforced boards, one of consumers, one of producers. Nothing could be sold until the board of consuemrs agreed with the board of producers on a price. This would result in a price that the 'market', meaning, the population felt comfortable with, not a profitable market segment. Companies would be unable to jack their prices for 10% of their elegible users to squeeze the most profits from those who could afford and justify the top price. (In the marketing world, the rule of thumb is that 10% of your consumers is 70% of your profits, which is why the whole 'vote with your wallet' thing simply does not work. In reality, comapnies really only need 1 in 10 of their active consumers.)
But here's the irony, huh? By fair, I mean for the consumer. If people threaten to pirate, instead of forking over the full price, I'd say thats a pretty good indication that your consumers deem the price unreasonable, for whatever reason. Now software is a special case, in which a copy of the original can be made and spread around in a market that has rejected the produder-set-price, which is one of the reasons software producers can get away with charging so much. Obviously, there is where the whole hub-bub of piracy comes from. Is software like a car? No. It can't be 'stolen', in the sense that the producer cannot still sell the original product. Of course, when # of pirated copies == # of possible customers, you get 0 revenue, but human behaviour does not allow this to happen because it is a fundamental human value to want to give something back in return for a product or service. Anyone who tells you humans are out to get anything they can for free, and will do so if they can, is lying. Jwalking doesn't work that way, littering doesn't work that way. Pyramid scams don't work that way. There are countless examples where humans can get away with more than they choose to.
Photoshop isn't a jaguar. It's not a luxery. It's pretty much the defacto standard of the industry, which is why those with money deem the expensive price fair
> Of course if there were a way to make everyone pay what the sofware is worth to *them*, it would be the ideal situation. But how do you do that?
Polyani, a oft-overlooked post-war economist and socialist (not in the centralized communism sense
Anyhow, it's basically set pricing, but a decentalized machanism for setting that price. Cuba and Russia both didn't work, because the economic decisions were centralized, and thus not exposed to the actual in-reality market forces present when the prices were set.
That story that you linked too has nothing to do with Adobe not producing more software. They are just pulling out of some markets. The funny part is, Adobe software will still get pirated ad nauseum in those areas, but Adobe will save money on actually trying to push legit sales plans in those geographies.
t s markets in Asia. In other words, nobody can proove that Adobe would have had a profitable market in those geographics, even if they were able to reduce piracy to 0%
Really, nobody is losing out in Adobe pulling out, and, if anything, Adobe will save costs by focusing on the markets that deem that Adobe products are priced fairly.
Meanwhile, they will still reap the benifits of industry entrenchment and distribution coverage that the priracy market encourages, so the only thing they are losing out on is the impossible-to-proove-that-it-actually-really-exis
My guess is that its a little of column A and a little of column B. Some piracy is always good. Too much, from your entire consumer base, and you dont get any revenue to continue development. Too little, and you lose out on a (admittedly illegal) market that does wonders to entrench products in industries. Like hillfinger, who tells retailers not to crack down on shoplifters, Adobe probably recogizes (tho cant admit to their shareholders, if they are public) that a little bit of piracy goes a long way. After all, I've seen tons of sales stem from adults with money asking kids with pirated software what they should buy. Sometimes, these piraters do more for a products sales than the company's actual sales dept.
I've always dismissed the argument that piracy or theft == potential market. People have no problem purchasing things at fair prices (indeed, we see in this story that college kids are more likely to buy at prices they can justify); but make no mistake that if they feel the price is unfair, they will probably seek to attain the commodity for free if they can. I have no idea what average salaries vs the price of Adobe software is in those Asian markets. Perhaps it was very expensive in those markets due to standards of living, etc, and what Adobe was asking. Piraters are often just people who wouldn't mind offering an unknown % of the asking price, if only the producer could offer vaiable pricing. The relative success of education discounts as a means of reducing piracy only goes to proove this point.
Don't treat responsible citizens who do illegal things as criminals - ask why those responsible citizens feel they are left with no choice but to commit illegal acts. Usually, you'll find that even if you can make a profit on a smaller group of wealthy consumers, its in your best interests to find ways of additionally offering your product at viable pricing scheme to other markets. The trick is to keep consumers happy when they're aware that the price differs based on your situation. In this 'get a leg up' economy, its a very tricky balancing act.
There's always the fact that murders have always plagued humans. We simply tend to lock into the 'new' angles of sensational stories. In this case, a connection with videogames was very obvious, and it suited the already growing anti-violent-videogames sentiment at the time.
I tend to look at these things, and shrug. Nuthing new. Humans will always have a few who fall through the cracks and are forced to scream out for attention and revenge for perceived wrongs; its just too bad we strive so hard to 'categorize' the influences instead of trying to understand the less material catalysts behind their physcological state at the time of the tragedy.
I was teased, ridiculed, and ostricized from school, and I thoguht about suicide more than a few times. To me, it doesn't seem like that far of a leap from what these kids to from the psycological states that thousands upon thousands of outcasts suffer from school. Their reaction was out of line, their actions uncondonable, but I cannot simply dismiss the fact that popular school goers get away with psycological torture that is far more of an influence on what these kids did than video games.
And if you don't understand, thats half my point. Humans look for the bright red flags that say, "Look at me, I caused people to do this," and usually dismiss what outcasts are consistantly saying: "It fucking hurts to be hated by so many people." You have to take the extent of the pain caused by seemingly flippant adolescent peer to peer behaviour on faith.
That was my under-the-table meaning. :) I'm a firm beliver that each new innovation decreases our ability to keep 'track' of our world, and make sane decisions on how we feel it should be run under a democracy. In short: there is so much shit, no one can know it all, and thus the axioms of the free-market and democracy fall apart. Scary.
Yes, laws being put forth are indeed unconsitutional. However, they have nothing to do with the 'size' of government, and everything to do with the 'size' of companies who can bribe the government. Reduce the amount of money any particular group of private interests can make, and you reduce the likelyhood of 'purchasing' laws. Of course, Disney has been doing this for years, but we're really approaching some sort of 'make-or-break' point here. I've never really been interested in living in the US, but these days, the very thought sends shivers down my spine. I don't think its your government, I think it's the size of your companies, the size of the pot of gold to be won (tho I think that the pot of gold is largely imaginary, part of the mystic prize of unmitigated free-markets), and the complete lack of any kind of regulations banning private influence on government.
....
Incidentally, you might be interested to know that the closest thing to total-free-market libertarianism that has occurred so far in western society (UK, 18th century) resulted in MASS poverty, and the price of bread rising above levels the vast majority of the population could afford. Under totally free markets, people 'compete' until there is no time/money left over after production to inject back into the economy or use to enjoy said fruits of the system.
Most countries that have seen their GDP rise over the last 10 years (India, Japan) have done so using decidedly anti-free-market tactics (choosing and awarding development to oganizations that are more likely to help the economy in the long run than provide the 'cheapest and best' in the short run), and of all the countries in the EU that have been placed under WTO sactioned IMF reforms, where everything has gone free-market, only Poland has seen their GDP rise slightly. All other 12 countries have seen their GDP fall under true freemarket reforms; even the WTO admits nothing has worked out as planned in their 2000 annual report
So where does that leave you? With a decent system, some things to fix, and a immediate need to cleanse your political system of big business brown nosers. Life wasn't so bad in the mom'and'pop days, no matter what these huge corperations want you to believe. If you can find a non-violent way to restore your government to being more pro-people than pro-business, and temper your fears of market regulation (you dont want total regulation, of course, that doesn't work, but 'checks and balances' when things (read: MS, or RIAA) get out of hand, much like the checks and balances that supposedly prevent any one political body from owning all political decisions), you might have the greatest chance of stabilizing the situation.
As always, its the "Music industry has head stuck up ass. People will be mad. News at 11."
Duh.
It's a shame people dont have the time or money to care until it actually happens.
> Can someone please give me the slashdot defination of "hypocrite"?
Well, for starters, someone who reads, and then posts to a site for free, complaining about having to pay for it (how much did that post costs you?), is a hypocrite.
Nuff said. I'm more and more depressed by the day at the complete lack of desire by ANYONE to MAKE ANYTHING NEW anymore. Shit, everyone seems so caught up in making sure they can own shit ad nauseum that the whole idea of creating quality art seems to have gone out the window.
> Wouldn't a truly capitalistic company welcome competition so it can crush them in the marketplace? Or is it just fear?
/have/ competitors, you dont have the possibility of needing to fear anything. It simply removes any possibility of having to deal with superior solutions, which is usually what current market-champions want. It's porbably the single weakest aspect of capitalism is that once you get to the top, you can use your might by virtue of success to coast. It's how capitalism turns full circle and starts eating it's own tail. See: Disney, MS, communist governments .. ;)
That was certainly my point. Obviously, if MS is all about commercialization and capitalism, why are they so quick to poo on efforts to create competiting architectures. Its the usual story: MS champions collaberation only when they're first to the party.
As for whether it's fear, I prefer to think of it as security. So long as you dont
>"there was this notion that the world should be offered an alternative"
.. just position yourself, right under my thumb here ... "
What he's implying is that he thinks that its silly that there should be an alternative to passport (ie, he thinks anyone doing what passport is doing should join efforts with MS.) Ergo, I didn't his represent his implication with my paraphrasing. I omitted what he felt should be done instead of creating a competing architecture, but any idiot could figure out the gist of it:
MS: "Hey! We're doing that too! C'mon, we'll do it together
>" [it seems silly that the world] [sic] ... should be offered an alternative"
What kind of twisted capitalism is Mundie cheerleading here?!
how about market penetration? (both of developers using it, and people with installed clients)
The last two lines of the intro I caught the other night, while investigating a (TBD) murder that occurred during a beer league hockey game:
"Hockey sure can be a brutal sport."
"Yeah, it can be murder."
I mean, c'mon. 'Nuff said. I sure didn't see much special about the show, tho I'll admit it's well shot.