Those who publish things on the Internet did not do it at the point of a gun, as it has been done in a communist society. The authors, for whatever reason, chose to publish that information, which is their right of ownership. I would imagine these authors do it as a monument to themselves, and to their own greatness. Those who participate in "help" forums do it of their own free will, and most likely for the sheer joy of educating others. Furthermore, they do it because they can afford to do it. They have the time and the means, and they do it for their own enjoyment. I don't do it, and no one should be able to force me to do it. However, your informational communism would enable governments to do just that. It is inhumanity as its worst.
You may not want to suggest one form of government over another, but I do. Capitalism *is* the best form of government for a country, an Internet, or anywhere else. You'll notice I have no web site, as I have nothing I wish to share -- it's of no value to me. If I did have something important to say, I would write and sell a book.
What I take issue with are those who do share the work of others who do not wish to share their work. I contend that it is their right, by virtue of their labor, to own what they produce. Record companies that produce music do not want to share it with others, nor should they be compelled to do so. What would their motivation be to produce?
The civilizations you describe evolved from "warring tribal savages" to the definitively civilized societies they are by recognizing the rights of the individual. They stopped warring when they realized that initiating physical force against another is wrong -- that is, immoral. The best societies are the ones that treat men as ends in themselves, not just means to such ends. America is the best civilization on earth because it is the one that grants the greatest degree of freedom to its citizens. Anything that stifles a person's freedom to improve himself (e.g., file sharing that curtails an artist's profit) is not just counterproductive, but anti-productive and uncivilized.
It's great that you want us to work for the good of our fellow men, but who puts the food on the table? Who puts the roof over our heads? More importantly, how do I put a better roof over my head when I want to? How do I improve my life if I have no means of making money for my ideas which are of value to you?
If a man could make a better car than Lexus does, and if he wanted to sell them on eBay -- why he would I'd never know -- then he would certainly deserve every penny he earns.:-)
Yes, the quest for profit has done great things for humanity. It's brought us the candle, the lightbulb, the car, cheap electrical power, widely available music. It's doubled our lifespans, and improved the quality of life of every human being on the planet. Is this what you attack?
That said, I must tell you that communism is the most immoral system of government men -- I hesitate to call them men -- have ever devised. It is a system designed to give the most to people who deserve the least, and punishes those who can produce. This system, which you embrace as a "human" way to run a government, is to me the most viciously inhuman form of domination a person can imagine. I believe the best word I can use to describe it is slavery.
The People's Republic of China recently amended their constitution to change the place of private enterprise from a "healthy complement" to state industry to a "vital component of" China's economy. Even the communist countries are learning that centrally planned economies are, by their nature, doomed to fail.
Yes, sir, I do understand the concept of the metaphor, and I do not pray to any gods whatever. If I were pray to anyone, it would be to myself, and to my ability. My ability, and my work, is the cause of my money and wealth.
You think money is evil, but have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is the symbol and consequence of production, and I accept it in exchange for my work on the confidence that I may in turn exchange it for the fruits of others' labor. Money by itself is meaningless. Money can take you anywhere you wish to go, but it will not replace you as the driver. Is this what you damn?
The reason communism is immoral is because it attempts to reverse human nature. In a communist country, people are paid *not* to produce -- they are rewarded for their idleness, and those who can and do produce are punished. Would you work your hardest knowing that if you succeed, you will not be rewarded with a warm home and a good meal, but instead that you will be treated like the lowest form of criminal? The lowest imbeciles are exalted as the most ingenious industrialists, not because they can run a factory or produce food to feed their nations, but because they "never had a chance." Is this what you consider good and moral?
Furthermore, do you realize that the products of the mind are as valuable as the products of the hand? If no one had discovered how to make candles, light bulbs, cars or music, do you think any amount of effort could have produced them? Ideas are the legitimate fruits of the labor of the mind, and the men and women who create them have every right to claim them as their property.
I consider greed and selfishness two of the greatest virtues, because they are what drives men and women to succeed and accomplish. I care nothing for your background, your experience, your culture, your religion. Nothing whatever. What I care about is what you can *do*, and that you do it for your benefit, because I know that you will never lack for motivation.
The consumers, to a large extent, decide on a reasonable price. The record companies understand that if the price goes too low, they lose money. If the price goes to high, they lose money. The trick is to find the "happy medium" that maximizes both the *number* of sales and the *value* of the sales.
That the government feels it has the right to regulate so-called monopolies is ridiculous. What they are saying is that if one company consistently does better than all others, they deserve to be punished. How is that fair? The price of government regulations on those companies has driven up their costs. Microeconomically speaking, there's no such thing as a tax on a business. The tax is shared between the business and the consumer. *We* get to pay extra for those anti-monopoly laws, and so do the "monopolies."
If a company has earned its monopoly status, then it has every right to exploit it. It's legislation like this that makes the U.S. economy not entirely capitalistic, and it throws our economy off balance, all under the banner of altruism.
You may be making a copy, but you're taking that copy without paying for it. The thing that you're stealing for the record company is its profit, which it has every right to make. Why? Because it's a *company!* It doesn't exist for your benefit or anyone else's. It exists purely for the purpose of making a profit, and when you copy a song, you are stealing the profit from them. It's this simple: you don't own the music. The record company does. They're willing to give you a license to listen to it any time you wish -- in exchange for money. That is how business works.
It's great that half of your music downloads lead to purchases, but what about the other half? If you download an album that you like, but aren't willing to pay for, then you've cheated the record company out of a profit that is rightfully theirs. It really is just that simple.
This is *exactly* the problem, the belief that there's something wrong with capitalism. This is a *wonderfully* capitalistic viewpoint. Pure, unbridled capitalism is the best way to run any economy. If the record companies were charging too much, their profits would fall, and they would lower their prices. So you, apparently, think that since the music costs too much, you have the right to steal it instead. Freely distributed information? It's not *yours*. You don't *own* it. The record companies do, and they are the only ones who have the right to decide how to sell it and it what capacity. What you are advocating is a terribly communistic viewpoint, and that frightens me.
Your argument hinges on the belief that it is somehow noble to work for free. You would probably even say "for the benefit of one's fellow men." What if I don't wish to work for your benefit for free? The artists are working for their own benefit, as I would imagine you are too. Take away their incentive to work, and they'll stop doing it, or they won't do it well. The man who produces something of value to others is entitled to compensation. Not only that, but he is entitled to as much of it as he can get. I wish the record companies would issue a statement like this: "We are out to skin the public and make as great a profit as we can. That is why we are in business. That is our only reason for being in business, and we won't apologize for being good at it." I'm not praying to any gods, sir. I'm making money. But I'll rest secure in the knowledge that as long as you and people like you think things get accomplished by praying to gods, companies will still be able to do their job: making profit.
I suppose next you'll say money is the root of all evil.
But there's only one George Michael! Are we to clone him and let each clone work for a different company? Clearly, when there's only one way to produce a particular type of thing, in this case George Michael or Oasis CDs, then the one who hires those artists is the one who gets the monopoly. And who gets to determine what's reasonably priced? The *reasonable* price, as any economist will tell you, is the one that maximizes both profits and sales. It's all supply and demand.
'Scuse me, but did anyone ever think that maybe intellectual property is, well, property? If people have *voluntarily* paid $12-15+ for a CD -- because it's worth that amount of money to them -- then haven't the recording companies earned every penny they have? By what right does anyone expropriate the property of another simply because he or she feels that other party -- in this case the recording companies -- doesn't need the profit? The recording companies exist for one purpose: to make money. They do this by hiring artists to produce music that they can *sell copies of* to other people. That you feel that you want it gives you no claim on it. For example, if I feel I want to drive your new Lexus -- after all, you have your Mercedes you could be driving -- why can't I just hop in the driver's seat and take it for a spin? Is it perhaps that, horror of horrors, you *own* your Lexus because you *paid* the dealership *money* for it? And if you own your Lexus, then clearly I do not. Therefore, I have no claim on your car. The recording industry makes music instead of Lexuses, and they have every right to charge whatever they like for it. You, on the other hand, have the right to curtail their profits at any time. You may very freely refuse to purchase music that isn't worth the price the retailer wishes to charge. Do I feel sympathy for anyone who has been hit by the RIAA's lawsuit? Not a shred. If you wish to redefine copyright laws to compel recording companies to publish all music for free individual use, then you may count on the quick and painful death of all recording companies. If you revoke a company's right to make a profit, then you simultaneously revoke its motivation to produce. Also, you condemn its employees -- including the recording artists whose work you so cherish, evidently -- to unemployment. Legalizing music theft would spell the end of the recording industry. It's just that simple. Property is property, and stealing, by any other name, is just as wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
You may not want to suggest one form of government over another, but I do. Capitalism *is* the best form of government for a country, an Internet, or anywhere else. You'll notice I have no web site, as I have nothing I wish to share -- it's of no value to me. If I did have something important to say, I would write and sell a book.
What I take issue with are those who do share the work of others who do not wish to share their work. I contend that it is their right, by virtue of their labor, to own what they produce. Record companies that produce music do not want to share it with others, nor should they be compelled to do so. What would their motivation be to produce?
The civilizations you describe evolved from "warring tribal savages" to the definitively civilized societies they are by recognizing the rights of the individual. They stopped warring when they realized that initiating physical force against another is wrong -- that is, immoral. The best societies are the ones that treat men as ends in themselves, not just means to such ends. America is the best civilization on earth because it is the one that grants the greatest degree of freedom to its citizens. Anything that stifles a person's freedom to improve himself (e.g., file sharing that curtails an artist's profit) is not just counterproductive, but anti-productive and uncivilized.
It's great that you want us to work for the good of our fellow men, but who puts the food on the table? Who puts the roof over our heads? More importantly, how do I put a better roof over my head when I want to? How do I improve my life if I have no means of making money for my ideas which are of value to you?
I can say with total confidence that they would forfeit all of this free market research for the billions of dollars these people owe them.
If a man could make a better car than Lexus does, and if he wanted to sell them on eBay -- why he would I'd never know -- then he would certainly deserve every penny he earns. :-)
That said, I must tell you that communism is the most immoral system of government men -- I hesitate to call them men -- have ever devised. It is a system designed to give the most to people who deserve the least, and punishes those who can produce. This system, which you embrace as a "human" way to run a government, is to me the most viciously inhuman form of domination a person can imagine. I believe the best word I can use to describe it is slavery.
The People's Republic of China recently amended their constitution to change the place of private enterprise from a "healthy complement" to state industry to a "vital component of" China's economy. Even the communist countries are learning that centrally planned economies are, by their nature, doomed to fail.
Yes, sir, I do understand the concept of the metaphor, and I do not pray to any gods whatever. If I were pray to anyone, it would be to myself, and to my ability. My ability, and my work, is the cause of my money and wealth.
You think money is evil, but have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is the symbol and consequence of production, and I accept it in exchange for my work on the confidence that I may in turn exchange it for the fruits of others' labor. Money by itself is meaningless. Money can take you anywhere you wish to go, but it will not replace you as the driver. Is this what you damn?
The reason communism is immoral is because it attempts to reverse human nature. In a communist country, people are paid *not* to produce -- they are rewarded for their idleness, and those who can and do produce are punished. Would you work your hardest knowing that if you succeed, you will not be rewarded with a warm home and a good meal, but instead that you will be treated like the lowest form of criminal? The lowest imbeciles are exalted as the most ingenious industrialists, not because they can run a factory or produce food to feed their nations, but because they "never had a chance." Is this what you consider good and moral?
Furthermore, do you realize that the products of the mind are as valuable as the products of the hand? If no one had discovered how to make candles, light bulbs, cars or music, do you think any amount of effort could have produced them? Ideas are the legitimate fruits of the labor of the mind, and the men and women who create them have every right to claim them as their property.
I consider greed and selfishness two of the greatest virtues, because they are what drives men and women to succeed and accomplish. I care nothing for your background, your experience, your culture, your religion. Nothing whatever. What I care about is what you can *do*, and that you do it for your benefit, because I know that you will never lack for motivation.
That the government feels it has the right to regulate so-called monopolies is ridiculous. What they are saying is that if one company consistently does better than all others, they deserve to be punished. How is that fair? The price of government regulations on those companies has driven up their costs. Microeconomically speaking, there's no such thing as a tax on a business. The tax is shared between the business and the consumer. *We* get to pay extra for those anti-monopoly laws, and so do the "monopolies."
If a company has earned its monopoly status, then it has every right to exploit it. It's legislation like this that makes the U.S. economy not entirely capitalistic, and it throws our economy off balance, all under the banner of altruism.
It's great that half of your music downloads lead to purchases, but what about the other half? If you download an album that you like, but aren't willing to pay for, then you've cheated the record company out of a profit that is rightfully theirs. It really is just that simple.
Your argument hinges on the belief that it is somehow noble to work for free. You would probably even say "for the benefit of one's fellow men." What if I don't wish to work for your benefit for free? The artists are working for their own benefit, as I would imagine you are too. Take away their incentive to work, and they'll stop doing it, or they won't do it well. The man who produces something of value to others is entitled to compensation. Not only that, but he is entitled to as much of it as he can get. I wish the record companies would issue a statement like this: "We are out to skin the public and make as great a profit as we can. That is why we are in business. That is our only reason for being in business, and we won't apologize for being good at it." I'm not praying to any gods, sir. I'm making money. But I'll rest secure in the knowledge that as long as you and people like you think things get accomplished by praying to gods, companies will still be able to do their job: making profit.
I suppose next you'll say money is the root of all evil.
But there's only one George Michael! Are we to clone him and let each clone work for a different company? Clearly, when there's only one way to produce a particular type of thing, in this case George Michael or Oasis CDs, then the one who hires those artists is the one who gets the monopoly. And who gets to determine what's reasonably priced? The *reasonable* price, as any economist will tell you, is the one that maximizes both profits and sales. It's all supply and demand.
'Scuse me, but did anyone ever think that maybe intellectual property is, well, property? If people have *voluntarily* paid $12-15+ for a CD -- because it's worth that amount of money to them -- then haven't the recording companies earned every penny they have? By what right does anyone expropriate the property of another simply because he or she feels that other party -- in this case the recording companies -- doesn't need the profit? The recording companies exist for one purpose: to make money. They do this by hiring artists to produce music that they can *sell copies of* to other people. That you feel that you want it gives you no claim on it. For example, if I feel I want to drive your new Lexus -- after all, you have your Mercedes you could be driving -- why can't I just hop in the driver's seat and take it for a spin? Is it perhaps that, horror of horrors, you *own* your Lexus because you *paid* the dealership *money* for it? And if you own your Lexus, then clearly I do not. Therefore, I have no claim on your car. The recording industry makes music instead of Lexuses, and they have every right to charge whatever they like for it. You, on the other hand, have the right to curtail their profits at any time. You may very freely refuse to purchase music that isn't worth the price the retailer wishes to charge. Do I feel sympathy for anyone who has been hit by the RIAA's lawsuit? Not a shred. If you wish to redefine copyright laws to compel recording companies to publish all music for free individual use, then you may count on the quick and painful death of all recording companies. If you revoke a company's right to make a profit, then you simultaneously revoke its motivation to produce. Also, you condemn its employees -- including the recording artists whose work you so cherish, evidently -- to unemployment. Legalizing music theft would spell the end of the recording industry. It's just that simple. Property is property, and stealing, by any other name, is just as wrong.
Who is John Galt?