While I don't mind seeing stupid people die, their children shouldn't be doomed to the same fate. Statistically, only 50% of stupid people's children are themselves stupid, so we should at least protect the 25% of smart children with stupid parents, hmm?
I'm not sure that I understand what you're suggesting here. By definition, aren't the 25% of kids worth saving smart enough to take case of themselves?
Incidentally, this situation reminds me of a commercial they showed here in the States -- I think it was for a Corvette, being driven by a child -- that people complained about for exactly the same reason. I don't think they pulled it, though.
Second, you're missing the point. "Real property" and "intellectual property" are different
Ah, I see. So when I wrote "The consequences of taking someone else's property are different in the two cases of course", which part of that point was I missing?
You were missing the point that it makes no sense to speak of "taking someone else's property" in the context of "Intellectual Property," because it makes the false presumption that "Intellectual Property" is actually property. In other words, you're saying "P implies Q," but failing to realize that P is false.
Please read up on basic economics. I would be happy to debate this subject with you, but until you have at least an elementary understanding of that field and how today's intellectual property laws fit into it, I do not see how I can illustrate the hole in your argument logically.
My argument is one based on the physical reality of the universe; economics is irrelevant to it. In addition, you can't use "today's intellectual property laws" to justify themselves; that's a circular argument.
As a starting point, consider that any time and money spend creating a work has an opportunity cost associated with it.
Yep, I completely agree.
Then consider that just because someone shares some information without themselves profiting from doing so, the act may still damage the commercial value of that information to others.
I agree here too.
Combine these two basic ideas and you start to build a more detailed economic picture that shows how a copyright holder can indeed be damaged by others sharing their work without compensating them, even if they still have a copy of the work themselves.
If we first postulate that a "copyright holder" exists, then yes, I can indeed see how he can be damaged, economically. Now, here's the problem: it doesn't make sense, physically speaking, for any such "copyright holder" to exist in the first place!
Your entire argument seems to be based on the presumptions that copyright exists and that it's possible to enforce. You then argue that, from those presumptions, that copyright infringement has negative consequences for the copyright holder, etc. In addition, you explain how copyright is desirable in terms of ethics (e.g. by giving authors fair credit for their work). That's all fine and dandy; I'm not disagreeing with any of it.
All I'm disagreeing with is your claim that "intellectual property" is the same thing as "real property." If we had Star Trek-style replicators, then I'd agree with you (and, of course, extend my claims to include "real property" as well). But we don't, so the fact that "intellectual property" is inherently copyable while "real property" isn't causes them to be different in a very significant way. The consequence of that fact -- which is a feature of physical reality, not economics -- is that your postulates (that copyright can exist and be enforced) are false and the whole argument is moot. In other words, yes, P -> Q, but ~P, so you have (so far) failed to prove Q!
For someone so clued up about logical fallacies, you're very quick to use an appeal to the masses. In fact, your final claim is demonstrably false, given that I am a counterexample. The recent success of legal on-line music services suggests that I am not the only one.
My "final claim" wasn't a claim. Or at least, it wasn't a claim made for the purpose of justifying the rest of my argument. Still, you're right that I overstated it when I said "everyone" (which I meant in a colloquial sense).
Also, which "success[ful] online music services" are you referring to? The ones that don't use DRM (e.g. eMusic, AllOfMP3), the ones that aren't actually successful (e.g. PlaysForSu
To give a specific example, the law of property ownership is a product of the mind. The natural state of things is that if I see something and it isn't tied down or guarded, it is mine if I want to take it. I always find it odd that people trot out the same tired arguments about how "intellectual property" and "real property" aren't at all the same thing, when in fact they are more similar than different. Both are artificial concepts created by the law. The consequences of taking someone else's property are different in the two cases of course, but they are not zero in either case.
First of all, trying to discredit the argument with an emotional appeal (i.e., calling it "tired") is a fallacy.
Second, you're missing the point. "Real property" and "intellectual property" are different, and here's why:
Imagine I'm holding a rock. The physical reality of the fact that I'm holding (i.e., owning) it prevents anyone else from holding (i.e., owning) it at the same time. Moreover, I can use that piece of property without having to give it to anyone else first (for example, I can tie it to the end of a stick and go kill an antelope with it). Moreover, I can only use it if I haven't given it to someone else.
Now, imagine that I'm thinking of an idea. Obviously, this does me no good whatsoever unless I communicate it to someone else. But then once I do share it with someone else, I can't claim to "own" it anymore. As "property," it's inherently useless; therefore it makes no sense for it actually to be property.
Now, you're right that a law allowing me to put down my rock and walk off while still "owning" it is a construction of society. However, such laws are still based on and justified by the physical reality of the situation. As a consequence, laws that try to establish the same thing for "intellectual property" have no basis or justification!
In other words, although we, as a society, build up artificial constructs of law, eventually it all boils down to the physical fact that a rock cannot be used by both you and me at the same time, but an idea must be shared between us in order to be used. Everything else must follow from that, or else we end up with the situation we have here, which is that everyone disregards the law.
There's one important fact that the free culture argument tends to neglect. Sure, a copy of a movie costs effectively zero. But the original has a cost that's decidedly nonzero.
Then, economically speaking, it's possible that the only "solution" is to stop making movies. You might not like it, but your feelings do not change reality.
Doesn't every piece of software come with a shrink-wrap EULA that says something like "You agree not to sue us if this software breaks your computer"...?
First of all, it's ridiculous to think that EULAs are valid in the first place.
Second, and more importantly, disclaiming an accidental act is one thing, but disclaiming a malicious, intentional one is quite another. It would be quite a fucked up world if something like that were ruled legal, no matter what the circumstances!
First of all, I switched to the Mac from Linux (and now -- although I hate to admit it -- I've sort of switched to Windows, but that's only because I'm using a Tablet PC). Anyway, I know all about using package managers, and yes, I do lament the fact that that's not the "normal" way to install software in Mac OS.
Second, 3rd-party package managers do exist for the Mac, namely Fink (which uses apt) and DarwinPorts (which uses the BSD port system). However, neither of those seemed to be able to install a copy of Octave that actually worked properly, and especially not one that had a GUI.
I have the same printer, and I'm actually glad it's all in one kit.
Actually, I would have preferred that it be separate, but the integrated unit was a trade-off I made in order to get a lower initial cost (in other words, all the [network] printers with separate toner and drums were at least $100 more).
I REALLY REALLY don't miss having to refill ink cartridges.
Can't argue with you there, especially since mine tended to need to be refilled not from use, but because the damn ink evaporated and/or clogged the print heads!
I hate to break it to you, but "not needing drum replacements" is most likely a euphemism for "having an integrated drum/toner cartridge, so replacing the toner means replacing the drum at the same time." Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, mind you -- my Brother HL-2070N is like that. But it's important to at least be aware of such things, you know?
To quote Phillip J. Eby: "Some people, when confronted with a problem, think 'I know, I'll use XML.' Now they have two problems."
And I have a t-shirt that says (in the style of those motivational posters) "Abstraction: because the first step in solving any problem is always to create more problems." So, does that mean abstraction is bad, too?
Recently purchased 1.6 ghz? Even dell's budget laptop is better than that.... Anything non-budget will run vista fast.
What, so $2000 ultraportable laptops are "budget" now? 'Cause, you know, even the highest-end of those use low-voltage (1.83 or 1.66 GHz) or even ultra-low-voltage (1.1 GHz) Core Duos! It's entirely possible that the "1.6 GHz Dell" he was referring to was one with a (1.66 GHz) L2400 Core Duo.
"USB 2.0 hi-speed" is 60MB/sec, not 10. Although that's still less than your 80+MB/sec figure, it might be reasonable to assume that it's higher than the sustained transfer speed of the SATA drive. Since ReadyBoost (or whatever) uses memory on the order of hundreds or thousands of megabytes while hard drives have caches on the order of one megabyte, ReadyBoost could still provide a significant speedup for reads larger than 8MB but smaller than 2GB.
Besides, I think the intent is more to have high-speed flash on a fast bus, like on my X60 (which has a SD slot that is not attached through a USB interface, but something else (PCI[e], maybe?) instead. In that case, it conceivably could be faster than the hard drive's burst speed.
Of course Apple doesn't own the letter "i," but it has used "i[Foo]" enough in the past that it's unreasonable to think that another company in the computer/consumer electronics industry could have an exclusive claim to any "i[Foo]" type name. I mean, perhaps you can argue that Apple shouldn't be able to prevent someone else from using such a name (which it's never tried to do anyway), but you can't reasonably argue that someone else should be able to prevent Apple from using that name. I mean, iPhone is just a continuation of the series "iMac," "iBook," "iPod," "iTunes," "iLife," "iWork," "iSync," etc. that Apple started in 1999 (or earlier?). What did Cisco have that was named "i[Foo]" in 1999? Nothing, that's what -- and that's exactly why Apple has a stronger claim to the name "iPhone."
I'm guessing the guy would still be in trouble because the look of the Ferrari is probably trademarked or something.
Ferrari can't do that!
The only thing companies in sane (i.e., not computer-related) industries are allowed to trademark are logos. So yes, a person could make a car look just like a Ferrari, legally -- as long as they didn't copy the actual Ferrari logo.
Please allow me to take an arrogant European tone:
You americans always focus on the "who is making profit ?" aspect of the law. Is this the lil' guy ? is this the big corporation ? is it the state ? Is it the "good" person ? (That is, according to an unwritten law of ethics and morals.)
The European stance on the patent system is "What system favors the exchange of ideas and the development of innovative industries ?". It is rooted in the belief that good ideas are too precious to be kept solely by an individual seeking profit.
That's funny; us Americans (the sane ones, anyway) think exactly the same way about copyright, except in reverse (i.e., American copyright was about "promoting progress" rather than creator's entitlement or control, until the (European) Berne Convention treaty was ratified). So I guess we both have each other to blame, don't we?
Desktop search? You're kidding, right? Vista didn't come up with that one; both it and OS X "ripped it off" from BeOS (except Apple at least hired the Be programmer who wrote it in the first place)!
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure that I understand what you're suggesting here. By definition, aren't the 25% of kids worth saving smart enough to take case of themselves?
What, GM (i.e., Holden)?
Incidentally, this situation reminds me of a commercial they showed here in the States -- I think it was for a Corvette, being driven by a child -- that people complained about for exactly the same reason. I don't think they pulled it, though.
Okay, first of all, those keys were not that small.
Second, can't we just give all the kids who would be stupid enough to choke on stuff like that Darwin awards and move on?
Thank you. By the way, I very much like your skydiving analogy -- nice vivid imagery, there!
You were missing the point that it makes no sense to speak of "taking someone else's property" in the context of "Intellectual Property," because it makes the false presumption that "Intellectual Property" is actually property. In other words, you're saying "P implies Q," but failing to realize that P is false.
My argument is one based on the physical reality of the universe; economics is irrelevant to it. In addition, you can't use "today's intellectual property laws" to justify themselves; that's a circular argument.
Yep, I completely agree.
I agree here too.
If we first postulate that a "copyright holder" exists, then yes, I can indeed see how he can be damaged, economically. Now, here's the problem: it doesn't make sense, physically speaking, for any such "copyright holder" to exist in the first place!
Your entire argument seems to be based on the presumptions that copyright exists and that it's possible to enforce. You then argue that, from those presumptions, that copyright infringement has negative consequences for the copyright holder, etc. In addition, you explain how copyright is desirable in terms of ethics (e.g. by giving authors fair credit for their work). That's all fine and dandy; I'm not disagreeing with any of it.
All I'm disagreeing with is your claim that "intellectual property" is the same thing as "real property." If we had Star Trek-style replicators, then I'd agree with you (and, of course, extend my claims to include "real property" as well). But we don't, so the fact that "intellectual property" is inherently copyable while "real property" isn't causes them to be different in a very significant way. The consequence of that fact -- which is a feature of physical reality, not economics -- is that your postulates (that copyright can exist and be enforced) are false and the whole argument is moot. In other words, yes, P -> Q, but ~P, so you have (so far) failed to prove Q!
My "final claim" wasn't a claim. Or at least, it wasn't a claim made for the purpose of justifying the rest of my argument. Still, you're right that I overstated it when I said "everyone" (which I meant in a colloquial sense).
Also, which "success[ful] online music services" are you referring to? The ones that don't use DRM (e.g. eMusic, AllOfMP3), the ones that aren't actually successful (e.g. PlaysForSu
What they really need to do is crack the PS3's device key!
TPM means "Trusted Platform Module." You know, that thing the TCG ("Trusted Computing Group") made a specification for.
First of all, trying to discredit the argument with an emotional appeal (i.e., calling it "tired") is a fallacy.
Second, you're missing the point. "Real property" and "intellectual property" are different, and here's why:
Imagine I'm holding a rock. The physical reality of the fact that I'm holding (i.e., owning) it prevents anyone else from holding (i.e., owning) it at the same time. Moreover, I can use that piece of property without having to give it to anyone else first (for example, I can tie it to the end of a stick and go kill an antelope with it). Moreover, I can only use it if I haven't given it to someone else.
Now, imagine that I'm thinking of an idea. Obviously, this does me no good whatsoever unless I communicate it to someone else. But then once I do share it with someone else, I can't claim to "own" it anymore. As "property," it's inherently useless; therefore it makes no sense for it actually to be property.
Now, you're right that a law allowing me to put down my rock and walk off while still "owning" it is a construction of society. However, such laws are still based on and justified by the physical reality of the situation. As a consequence, laws that try to establish the same thing for "intellectual property" have no basis or justification!
In other words, although we, as a society, build up artificial constructs of law, eventually it all boils down to the physical fact that a rock cannot be used by both you and me at the same time, but an idea must be shared between us in order to be used. Everything else must follow from that, or else we end up with the situation we have here, which is that everyone disregards the law.
Then, economically speaking, it's possible that the only "solution" is to stop making movies. You might not like it, but your feelings do not change reality.
What do you mean, "will result?" It already has resulted in hardware DRM -- if you have Vista and a machine with a TPM, it's already there!
Nope, if the UI designers had Macs, I wouldn't have to download a theme to get it to look good in Mac OS!
First of all, it's ridiculous to think that EULAs are valid in the first place.
Second, and more importantly, disclaiming an accidental act is one thing, but disclaiming a malicious, intentional one is quite another. It would be quite a fucked up world if something like that were ruled legal, no matter what the circumstances!
Or better yet, don't run it at all -- and then see how much profit this asshole makes!
First of all, I switched to the Mac from Linux (and now -- although I hate to admit it -- I've sort of switched to Windows, but that's only because I'm using a Tablet PC). Anyway, I know all about using package managers, and yes, I do lament the fact that that's not the "normal" way to install software in Mac OS.
Second, 3rd-party package managers do exist for the Mac, namely Fink (which uses apt) and DarwinPorts (which uses the BSD port system). However, neither of those seemed to be able to install a copy of Octave that actually worked properly, and especially not one that had a GUI.
Actually, I would have preferred that it be separate, but the integrated unit was a trade-off I made in order to get a lower initial cost (in other words, all the [network] printers with separate toner and drums were at least $100 more).
Can't argue with you there, especially since mine tended to need to be refilled not from use, but because the damn ink evaporated and/or clogged the print heads!
I hate to break it to you, but "not needing drum replacements" is most likely a euphemism for "having an integrated drum/toner cartridge, so replacing the toner means replacing the drum at the same time." Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, mind you -- my Brother HL-2070N is like that. But it's important to at least be aware of such things, you know?
And I have a t-shirt that says (in the style of those motivational posters) "Abstraction: because the first step in solving any problem is always to create more problems." So, does that mean abstraction is bad, too?
Too bad it's ridiculously hard to install in OSX.
Why is that? Do statisticians prefer large schools so that they can improve their sample sizes?
What, so $2000 ultraportable laptops are "budget" now? 'Cause, you know, even the highest-end of those use low-voltage (1.83 or 1.66 GHz) or even ultra-low-voltage (1.1 GHz) Core Duos! It's entirely possible that the "1.6 GHz Dell" he was referring to was one with a (1.66 GHz) L2400 Core Duo.
"USB 2.0 hi-speed" is 60MB/sec, not 10. Although that's still less than your 80+MB/sec figure, it might be reasonable to assume that it's higher than the sustained transfer speed of the SATA drive. Since ReadyBoost (or whatever) uses memory on the order of hundreds or thousands of megabytes while hard drives have caches on the order of one megabyte, ReadyBoost could still provide a significant speedup for reads larger than 8MB but smaller than 2GB.
Besides, I think the intent is more to have high-speed flash on a fast bus, like on my X60 (which has a SD slot that is not attached through a USB interface, but something else (PCI[e], maybe?) instead. In that case, it conceivably could be faster than the hard drive's burst speed.
Of course Apple doesn't own the letter "i," but it has used "i[Foo]" enough in the past that it's unreasonable to think that another company in the computer/consumer electronics industry could have an exclusive claim to any "i[Foo]" type name. I mean, perhaps you can argue that Apple shouldn't be able to prevent someone else from using such a name (which it's never tried to do anyway), but you can't reasonably argue that someone else should be able to prevent Apple from using that name. I mean, iPhone is just a continuation of the series "iMac," "iBook," "iPod," "iTunes," "iLife," "iWork," "iSync," etc. that Apple started in 1999 (or earlier?). What did Cisco have that was named "i[Foo]" in 1999? Nothing, that's what -- and that's exactly why Apple has a stronger claim to the name "iPhone."
Ferrari can't do that!
The only thing companies in sane (i.e., not computer-related) industries are allowed to trademark are logos. So yes, a person could make a car look just like a Ferrari, legally -- as long as they didn't copy the actual Ferrari logo.
That's funny; us Americans (the sane ones, anyway) think exactly the same way about copyright, except in reverse (i.e., American copyright was about "promoting progress" rather than creator's entitlement or control, until the (European) Berne Convention treaty was ratified). So I guess we both have each other to blame, don't we?
Desktop search? You're kidding, right? Vista didn't come up with that one; both it and OS X "ripped it off" from BeOS (except Apple at least hired the Be programmer who wrote it in the first place)!