However, if the money flow was curtailed, perhaps by limiting copyrights to 5 years (or maybe even less), then their salaries would drop because every studio will have less money to throw into paying stars. The shows would still be made, and $250,000/show instead of $1M is still plenty enough incentive to keep stars in Hollywood considering that burger flipping only pays $50/day or so.
The industry can support high wages because they get free government airwaves, nice tax treatment, and above all, rediculous copy restriction power (both in scope and in length).
Personally, I would rather the government abolish copyrights (and any associated things, like trademarks on characters and EULAs) and put perhaps $10B a year into a large pot and distribute it based on a vote (Each citizen can decide where their slice of the $10B goes. Votes not cast are distributed according to ratings).
While I wouldn't mind donating to fund production of what I like, don't forget that you're also funding evil causes too, and you get very little production for your dollar, generally under 10 cents and easily as low as a cent for blockbuster shows where stars' obscene salaries make up most of the production budget (which is already only perhaps 10% the eventual revenues of an average shoe).
Assuming you don't get caught, you will easily get 10x the effectiveness by downloading (and not paying) and then giving a substantial amount (say $500) to either a lobbying organization like the FSF, or by giving it directly to an independant artist you love.
On a societal level, programs like France's sponsorship of French cinema as far more effective for getting stuff produced, both in numbers and in diversity/artistic quality.
For me personally, the only way you will get a donation is if you either lobby for my beliefs (like the FSF) or you copyleft or public domain your work (like GNU or any GPL project). This excludes groups like PBS.
This is a very shred move by Microsoft. They give up essentially nothing and in exchange get to land government contracts and if any open-source developers are actually stupid enough to accept their license, have them by the balls.
The license is not even remotely GPL compatible (or compatible with pretty much any open license). Major issues include:
- Non-sublicensable.
- Requires agreement to a patent license, which may be changed at Microsoft's discretion (notice that web link in the license).
- It is revocable.
Microsoft can be pretty confident that it won't find its way in its main competitor, OpenOffice, because their license won't allow it, while at the same time it aids them in throwing around FUD.
What rising sales in an age of increased file sharing shows is that copyrights are far too restrictive based on "to promote the progress of the arts and sciences". It shows that P2P increases the reach and availability of art (by cutting the cost and making available otherwise unaccesable material) while at the same time not materially effecting artist revenue.
This means that copyright should be loosened to make P2P fully legal. The MPAA might be in the legal right (after all, they buy their laws), but they are in the moral wrong and their actions do effect the standard of living and our economy.
What is sad is that the economy and consumers will pay far, far more than $860M because of this. I would peg the cost at around $10B, because corporations will pass both the settlement money and their lawyers fees to the customer. The higher price will reduce demand and a smaller industry means less innovation and more stagnation.
The $10B number is made up on the spot, but the costs are going to exceed $860M by far. It could easily be higher than $10B.
Very few things cost $20B to research, and in every case it's been a government (generally the USA or the USSR) that's picked up the tab. No private company would send the first satellite into space or the first person to the moon for $20B, patents or no patents.
Most patents cost $0 to research, because they came about while doing other work that would have to be done regardless. Research in general is a small fraction of the budget.
Coming from a consumer's POV, I want stuff released as early as possible, as cheaply as possible and of as good quality (versatile, durable, fast, etc) as possible. Eliminating patents would definitely aid in all those domains. If research is crimped (quite questionable, since patents have a tendancy to hinder progress), why can't the government fund some research? Even if they dole it out like pork and botch it up and generally run 300% over budget, consumers would rack up far larger savings in the form of cheaper and better products.
Have you tried negotiating it out. I haven't, but my understanding is that a large company values that patent at a lot more than $2000, and you'll probably be fired before they let you have the patent.
If those numbers are true, it would make even Microsoft's margin on Office look small (90%).
A mob protection racket will have far more expenses, mainly because of the organizational overhead and the cost of sending someone to every business in a pretty large city ($860M is a lot of money) every so often.
So you can say that this is the next level in protection rackets. Lower costs and more money.
Considering that MS Windows boxes are already the easiest to hack into and infect with spyware and viruses, I can just imagine how easy virus writing is going to become when half the computers in the world are running without having been updated in years.
Getting a good spam or DDOS bot network together will get even easier, as new flaws are found in MS Windows but are not patched on the 50%+ of installations that aren't properly licensed.
Taxes in the USA are around 20% of GDP. This is one of the lowest rates in the world. While the distribution of taxes might be lousy, there are very few taxes overall.
I do admit that a tax on petrol would tax the poor primarily, and they are already taxed enough, but why can't you tax petrol heavily, reduce or redistribute other taxes on the poor (sales tax, property taxes, social security taxes), and increase taxes on the rich (better enforcement, increase corporate and top bracket taxes modestly, and get rid of loopholes and excessively generous tax breaks.
People on cell phones usually yell much louder than normal people talking, probably because the reception is lousy and there is a lot of background noise.
Count yourselves lucky for the expensive petrol. I'm sure that the price keeps usage down, meaning that you have more to export. The taxes also help pay for what is some of the best, if not the best, social services in the world.
I'm sure that is my country (USA) taxed petrol even half as much as Norway taxes it, there would be massive amounts of money to help reduce the deficit, and our balance of trade would improve tremendously.
Cargo capacity can be handled by pickup trucks, minivans, or vans, depending on the exact use.
Seating capacity is nearly as well handled by a subcompact, which can fit 5 (so long as they aren't obese). Considering that having any more than 2 people in a car is rare, 5 seems plenty to me, and you can probably squeeze in a 6th when you're in a pinch, though not legally.
SUVs are not meant for off-road use. Get an ATV for that.
Well, it annoys me that you get to choose the temperature and CO2 levels on my property.
If you can get a zero-emissions SUV (or one that only releases harmless gasses like H20 or CO2 in a closed cycle like with biofuels), then it wouldn't be any of my business, but that SUV pollutes and effects me, so it is my business.
It's also my business what other countries do, since their pollution does effect me.
CO2 is a global problem, and individualism is not going to solve it.
You'd better have a whole load of printers and computers to carry, and they have better be carried often or far, because a subcompact can carry all but the largest computers and printers. Everything consumer can easily be fit in the back seat of any car, no matter how small. Most consumer goods will also fit into the trunk.
If you move the stuff a short distance and not all the frequently, you can always make a few trips.
If you really have that much stuff to cart around, maybe a van would be a better vehicle than a minivan or an SUV as it has far more cargo space and similar fuel efficiency and costs.
Having to watch ads certainly isn't free, as the advertisers are willing to pay real money for a stab at your wallet.
Having to subscribe, even if there is no dollar cost, is not free. It takes time and costs you your anonymity and will get your e-mail on spam lists.
The material is copyrighted (Which I find utterly dispicable considering that the US government provides it free of charge to the public domain - yet I can't get a public domain weather source on the net). It isn't free as in freedom unless it's either public domain or copylefted.
I have yet to find a site that doesn't totally piss me off (way too many ads and very obtrusive ads), so even though I am a net freak I still get my weather from the TV (not that I'm pleased with the ads there either, but they're not as bad).
There aren't any laws or treaties preventing private companies from sending things into space.
The only reason they don't do it is that companies have never been the type to research or do any long term investment without a guaranteed gargantuan payout (the magnitude of which much rise exponentially, and by about 15% a year).
A company can put $1B in excess capital in the stock market (or pay dividends, allowing the shareholders to do so) and in 35 years that $1B will become $32B on average. 70 years from now it can be expected to be worth over $1T. Since investing in space stuff is very risky, a substantial premium above the stock market return will be required to get companies to invest.
The bottom line: Governments are probably best left to handle research, and publicly release the results so that all companies have access to the latest tech, which will allow companies to do what they do best - manufacture, not research.
Considering that I have yet to see a single one of those overweight and underpowered motorscooters in my whole life, I don't see how it could be considered popular.
I live in the Big Apple, so I'd expect to have seen one by now if they were even remotely popular.
Well, it's up to the Chinese to decide what is legal and not over there.
Don't forget that we are more dependant on China for their manufacturing capacity. If China was to embargo us and dump their dollar reserves, it might put a crimp in their booming economy, but it could very well induce an inflationary spiral and depression in the USA.
Our economy is highly leveraged and vulnerable, their's is not.
Both of us have enough nukes to obliterate each other, so saber rattling will only go so far.
This is exactly why I do not install any closed source software anymore (with a few exceptions... I will install games ported by Loki... but only with user level permissions in their own user account).
The average windows user might not be savvy, but if Linux is now the dominant platform, every manufacturer will have to release the product Linux-ready or else they will cut themselves out of the largest market.
As far as cost goes, an equivalent Windows set up using proprietary software would be very expensive:
- WinXP Pro $300 - replaces Linux Fedora Core 3 (free) and many basic usilities like fdisk and telnet.
- SSH client + SSH server $???
- IIS server replaces Apache $???
- Photoshop replaces GIMP $???
- MSVC++ commercial edition replaces GCC
- MS Office replaces Open Office $200 to $300
- Video editing software
- Anti-Virus software
- FTP server.
- IRC client
- scheduling software replaces atd and crond
- Partition Magic replaces fdisk, mke2fs, and fstab $30?
- and a whole lot more. In all, it could easily cost me $5,000 in software to get a Windows box with similar functionality, and I would be bound by a whole slew of EULAs and would not have any source code.
Also, while it would be similar, it would be inferior. I need to purchase licenses to at least a dozen and perhaps close to a hundred different programs, and I have to install them all one at a time. If the setup gets messed up by some all-too-common spyware, I have to start over from scratch and hope I have all the install disks and serial numbers so I don't have to buy anything twice.
It'll be even worse than Soviet era in a sense, since at least the state was nominally accountable to the people and wasn't in the censorship business for profit (in fast, it cost them a lot of money to maintain it).
With corporations, not only will whatever you see or hear have to be supporting the causes that they want, you will pay through the nose for it. Consumer choice my ass when only a handful of corporations have the needed scale to survive, and their top executives are all in cahoots.
The mob are the ones who benefit from DRM. They have the resources to keep running, as they can stamp out exact copies using the same equipment the companies themselves use.
By making it harder to trade files online (either technically, or legally), it will create extra demand for the black market (assuming the negative industry-wide PR doesn't reduce total demand so much that everyone loses... which is quite possible).
Copyright and patents were intended to encourage people to make stuff that otherwise wouldn't be done. When people and organizations are willing to create an entire operating system and a collection of thousands of programs (GNU/Linux and the thousands of associated programs), the basic premise of copyright and patents is nullified.
If people will create without incentive, there is no reason to impose needless costs on both consumers and creators by strangling the public domain with laws like copyright. If Microsoft refuses to develop Windows because it no longer has any copyrights, then Linux is there as a replacement, and it will become 10x what Windows ever was or Linux is today once it becomes unshackled from copyright and patent issues and has the customer base of MS Windows today.
And that is assuming that no grants are given to fund open source development. The Chinese government, among others, has shown that they are willing to fund open source work. A small amount of federal funds would replace a massive amount spent in retail software licenses.
Slashdot Mirror
However, if the money flow was curtailed, perhaps by limiting copyrights to 5 years (or maybe even less), then their salaries would drop because every studio will have less money to throw into paying stars. The shows would still be made, and $250,000/show instead of $1M is still plenty enough incentive to keep stars in Hollywood considering that burger flipping only pays $50/day or so.
The industry can support high wages because they get free government airwaves, nice tax treatment, and above all, rediculous copy restriction power (both in scope and in length).
Personally, I would rather the government abolish copyrights (and any associated things, like trademarks on characters and EULAs) and put perhaps $10B a year into a large pot and distribute it based on a vote (Each citizen can decide where their slice of the $10B goes. Votes not cast are distributed according to ratings).
While I wouldn't mind donating to fund production of what I like, don't forget that you're also funding evil causes too, and you get very little production for your dollar, generally under 10 cents and easily as low as a cent for blockbuster shows where stars' obscene salaries make up most of the production budget (which is already only perhaps 10% the eventual revenues of an average shoe).
Assuming you don't get caught, you will easily get 10x the effectiveness by downloading (and not paying) and then giving a substantial amount (say $500) to either a lobbying organization like the FSF, or by giving it directly to an independant artist you love.
On a societal level, programs like France's sponsorship of French cinema as far more effective for getting stuff produced, both in numbers and in diversity/artistic quality.
For me personally, the only way you will get a donation is if you either lobby for my beliefs (like the FSF) or you copyleft or public domain your work (like GNU or any GPL project). This excludes groups like PBS.
This is a very shred move by Microsoft. They give up essentially nothing and in exchange get to land government contracts and if any open-source developers are actually stupid enough to accept their license, have them by the balls.
The license is not even remotely GPL compatible (or compatible with pretty much any open license). Major issues include:
- Non-sublicensable.
- Requires agreement to a patent license, which may be changed at Microsoft's discretion (notice that web link in the license).
- It is revocable.
Microsoft can be pretty confident that it won't find its way in its main competitor, OpenOffice, because their license won't allow it, while at the same time it aids them in throwing around FUD.
What rising sales in an age of increased file sharing shows is that copyrights are far too restrictive based on "to promote the progress of the arts and sciences". It shows that P2P increases the reach and availability of art (by cutting the cost and making available otherwise unaccesable material) while at the same time not materially effecting artist revenue.
This means that copyright should be loosened to make P2P fully legal. The MPAA might be in the legal right (after all, they buy their laws), but they are in the moral wrong and their actions do effect the standard of living and our economy.
What is sad is that the economy and consumers will pay far, far more than $860M because of this. I would peg the cost at around $10B, because corporations will pass both the settlement money and their lawyers fees to the customer. The higher price will reduce demand and a smaller industry means less innovation and more stagnation.
The $10B number is made up on the spot, but the costs are going to exceed $860M by far. It could easily be higher than $10B.
Very few things cost $20B to research, and in every case it's been a government (generally the USA or the USSR) that's picked up the tab. No private company would send the first satellite into space or the first person to the moon for $20B, patents or no patents.
Most patents cost $0 to research, because they came about while doing other work that would have to be done regardless. Research in general is a small fraction of the budget.
Coming from a consumer's POV, I want stuff released as early as possible, as cheaply as possible and of as good quality (versatile, durable, fast, etc) as possible. Eliminating patents would definitely aid in all those domains. If research is crimped (quite questionable, since patents have a tendancy to hinder progress), why can't the government fund some research? Even if they dole it out like pork and botch it up and generally run 300% over budget, consumers would rack up far larger savings in the form of cheaper and better products.
Have you tried negotiating it out. I haven't, but my understanding is that a large company values that patent at a lot more than $2000, and you'll probably be fired before they let you have the patent.
That doesn't stop politicians from saying that patents 'help the little people', just like they falsy claim for copyright.
99% of all patents and copyrights that are worth any real money are held by corporations, generally very large ones, not individuals of modest means.
If those numbers are true, it would make even Microsoft's margin on Office look small (90%).
A mob protection racket will have far more expenses, mainly because of the organizational overhead and the cost of sending someone to every business in a pretty large city ($860M is a lot of money) every so often.
So you can say that this is the next level in protection rackets. Lower costs and more money.
Considering that MS Windows boxes are already the easiest to hack into and infect with spyware and viruses, I can just imagine how easy virus writing is going to become when half the computers in the world are running without having been updated in years.
Getting a good spam or DDOS bot network together will get even easier, as new flaws are found in MS Windows but are not patched on the 50%+ of installations that aren't properly licensed.
Taxes in the USA are around 20% of GDP. This is one of the lowest rates in the world. While the distribution of taxes might be lousy, there are very few taxes overall.
I do admit that a tax on petrol would tax the poor primarily, and they are already taxed enough, but why can't you tax petrol heavily, reduce or redistribute other taxes on the poor (sales tax, property taxes, social security taxes), and increase taxes on the rich (better enforcement, increase corporate and top bracket taxes modestly, and get rid of loopholes and excessively generous tax breaks.
People on cell phones usually yell much louder than normal people talking, probably because the reception is lousy and there is a lot of background noise.
Count yourselves lucky for the expensive petrol. I'm sure that the price keeps usage down, meaning that you have more to export. The taxes also help pay for what is some of the best, if not the best, social services in the world.
I'm sure that is my country (USA) taxed petrol even half as much as Norway taxes it, there would be massive amounts of money to help reduce the deficit, and our balance of trade would improve tremendously.
There is no legitimate needs whatsoever for SUVs.
Cargo capacity can be handled by pickup trucks, minivans, or vans, depending on the exact use.
Seating capacity is nearly as well handled by a subcompact, which can fit 5 (so long as they aren't obese). Considering that having any more than 2 people in a car is rare, 5 seems plenty to me, and you can probably squeeze in a 6th when you're in a pinch, though not legally.
SUVs are not meant for off-road use. Get an ATV for that.
Well, it annoys me that you get to choose the temperature and CO2 levels on my property.
If you can get a zero-emissions SUV (or one that only releases harmless gasses like H20 or CO2 in a closed cycle like with biofuels), then it wouldn't be any of my business, but that SUV pollutes and effects me, so it is my business.
It's also my business what other countries do, since their pollution does effect me.
CO2 is a global problem, and individualism is not going to solve it.
You'd better have a whole load of printers and computers to carry, and they have better be carried often or far, because a subcompact can carry all but the largest computers and printers. Everything consumer can easily be fit in the back seat of any car, no matter how small. Most consumer goods will also fit into the trunk.
If you move the stuff a short distance and not all the frequently, you can always make a few trips.
If you really have that much stuff to cart around, maybe a van would be a better vehicle than a minivan or an SUV as it has far more cargo space and similar fuel efficiency and costs.
Well, you just stated why it isn't free.
Having to watch ads certainly isn't free, as the advertisers are willing to pay real money for a stab at your wallet.
Having to subscribe, even if there is no dollar cost, is not free. It takes time and costs you your anonymity and will get your e-mail on spam lists.
The material is copyrighted (Which I find utterly dispicable considering that the US government provides it free of charge to the public domain - yet I can't get a public domain weather source on the net). It isn't free as in freedom unless it's either public domain or copylefted.
I have yet to find a site that doesn't totally piss me off (way too many ads and very obtrusive ads), so even though I am a net freak I still get my weather from the TV (not that I'm pleased with the ads there either, but they're not as bad).
There aren't any laws or treaties preventing private companies from sending things into space.
The only reason they don't do it is that companies have never been the type to research or do any long term investment without a guaranteed gargantuan payout (the magnitude of which much rise exponentially, and by about 15% a year).
A company can put $1B in excess capital in the stock market (or pay dividends, allowing the shareholders to do so) and in 35 years that $1B will become $32B on average. 70 years from now it can be expected to be worth over $1T. Since investing in space stuff is very risky, a substantial premium above the stock market return will be required to get companies to invest.
The bottom line: Governments are probably best left to handle research, and publicly release the results so that all companies have access to the latest tech, which will allow companies to do what they do best - manufacture, not research.
Considering that I have yet to see a single one of those overweight and underpowered motorscooters in my whole life, I don't see how it could be considered popular.
I live in the Big Apple, so I'd expect to have seen one by now if they were even remotely popular.
Well, it's up to the Chinese to decide what is legal and not over there.
Don't forget that we are more dependant on China for their manufacturing capacity. If China was to embargo us and dump their dollar reserves, it might put a crimp in their booming economy, but it could very well induce an inflationary spiral and depression in the USA.
Our economy is highly leveraged and vulnerable, their's is not.
Both of us have enough nukes to obliterate each other, so saber rattling will only go so far.
This is exactly why I do not install any closed source software anymore (with a few exceptions ... I will install games ported by Loki ... but only with user level permissions in their own user account).
The average windows user might not be savvy, but if Linux is now the dominant platform, every manufacturer will have to release the product Linux-ready or else they will cut themselves out of the largest market.
As far as cost goes, an equivalent Windows set up using proprietary software would be very expensive:
- WinXP Pro $300 - replaces Linux Fedora Core 3 (free) and many basic usilities like fdisk and telnet.
- SSH client + SSH server $???
- IIS server replaces Apache $???
- Photoshop replaces GIMP $???
- MSVC++ commercial edition replaces GCC
- MS Office replaces Open Office $200 to $300
- Video editing software
- Anti-Virus software
- FTP server.
- IRC client
- scheduling software replaces atd and crond
- Partition Magic replaces fdisk, mke2fs, and fstab $30?
- and a whole lot more.
In all, it could easily cost me $5,000 in software to get a Windows box with similar functionality, and I would be bound by a whole slew of EULAs and would not have any source code.
Also, while it would be similar, it would be inferior. I need to purchase licenses to at least a dozen and perhaps close to a hundred different programs, and I have to install them all one at a time. If the setup gets messed up by some all-too-common spyware, I have to start over from scratch and hope I have all the install disks and serial numbers so I don't have to buy anything twice.
It'll be even worse than Soviet era in a sense, since at least the state was nominally accountable to the people and wasn't in the censorship business for profit (in fast, it cost them a lot of money to maintain it).
With corporations, not only will whatever you see or hear have to be supporting the causes that they want, you will pay through the nose for it. Consumer choice my ass when only a handful of corporations have the needed scale to survive, and their top executives are all in cahoots.
The mob are the ones who benefit from DRM. They have the resources to keep running, as they can stamp out exact copies using the same equipment the companies themselves use.
... which is quite possible).
By making it harder to trade files online (either technically, or legally), it will create extra demand for the black market (assuming the negative industry-wide PR doesn't reduce total demand so much that everyone loses
Very good post.
Copyright and patents were intended to encourage people to make stuff that otherwise wouldn't be done. When people and organizations are willing to create an entire operating system and a collection of thousands of programs (GNU/Linux and the thousands of associated programs), the basic premise of copyright and patents is nullified.
If people will create without incentive, there is no reason to impose needless costs on both consumers and creators by strangling the public domain with laws like copyright. If Microsoft refuses to develop Windows because it no longer has any copyrights, then Linux is there as a replacement, and it will become 10x what Windows ever was or Linux is today once it becomes unshackled from copyright and patent issues and has the customer base of MS Windows today.
And that is assuming that no grants are given to fund open source development. The Chinese government, among others, has shown that they are willing to fund open source work. A small amount of federal funds would replace a massive amount spent in retail software licenses.