*65* years? That seems way over the top. Why can't laws just reflect some reason in the usa?
Yes, sure...he did more then just spam. But even murderers often come off with less then 65 years, so is spam, impersonating people, using botnets, etc. *really* worse than murdering people?
People should get a grip.
I'm all for laws against spam and all the rest of it, but hell, 5 years + a considerable fine is more than enough.
I already knew that the USA had a strong 'corporatism' going instead of something more democratic, but I always figgered the 'lobbying' was much the same as in my country, exept for the cap on the amount.
But following your link, am I to understand that senators get the money *personally*? I mean, is it for the individual itself? Because in my country, the money given is legally transferred to the party of said politician. I even don't like that system, because it's in effect still bribery with a proxy. But am I to understand that in the US, you can actually pay an individual senator? How is this different from actually..well, just bribing him?
I always thought the 'legal bribery' part of USA politics was slightly ironic...but it isn't?
What does the USA law say about giving money to politicians, and where/why does it make a difference between paying money to one and bribing him? Is the difference that a senator explicitly says he will change his politics if he is given money - thus, if he just do it without explicitly saying so it remains legal?
Can anyone link me to a site where the legality of bribing/lobbying is explained?
""It has come to MySpace's attention that you are a registered sex offender in one or more jurisdictions," the email said. "MySpace is committed to removing registered sex offenders from its site, and will take all necessary means to block or remove anyone it determines to pose a threat to its users.""
Ok, this distrubs me because IF the latter statement would be true, a lot more then just sex-offenders should be removed. Fact is, as always - especially in the USA - the reeal focus is the 'sex' part, not the 'feel safe' excuse. So, what, a sex offender poses a threat to its users, but, say, a serial killer doesn't? If they were really serious about their proclaimed goal, they should remove *everyone* with a criminal record.
I've never understood the implied argument that, somehow, sex offenders are the worst criminals that walk this earth, and the law therefor has to focus on them. I agree raping people is morally wrong and a criminal act...but is it worse than someone who kills people? There are still crimes that are worse, IMHO, and yet serial killers seem to have it easier then sex offenders.
Logically, this doesn't make sense, unless one deems rape worse than murder.
"No. My point all along is the opposite: your conclusions simply don't follow, even when I accept your premises, either because you make subtle but significant shifts in their meaning, or because you arbitrarily decide when your principles apply and when they don't."
Ummm...I already said in the former post I gather you think that. I have than continued to show why it was consistent. Alas, you simply do not accept it, mainly because you don't accept the premise (namely that not everyhting is goods, or, if you want to call all things goods - as you do - the differences between those goods warrant a difference about the legal construct that pertain to them too. You simply do not accept that.
Fine. But it doesn't follow my reasoning is inconsistent. I make a distinction between scarce and non-scarce, and artifial scarcity and inherent scarcity; on that my difference is based, and on that my conclusion is based that the rights given differ in moral value too. You do not acknowledge those differences, or think them irrelevant. Thus, you dispute my premise. With all your examples, though, you have never given me one where the good was scarce AND inherent/non-artificial and yet I would contradict my own reasonings. Every time you bring up the house, you say: "See, you're not being consistent"...but I've explained in vain many times by now, that a house (as an inherent scarce good) is something very different then a legal construct (as an artificial scarce good) itself. You simply do not accept that....BUT if you do, then my reasoning is fully consistent.
"Look, you are making claims about how things *should* be and what kind of claims *should* be honored. Those are moral claims."
No, we were making claims about the differences between goods (and especially about the scarcity) and how relevant they are. You yourself have continued to say you don't mean to indicate you are for or against IP-rights itself (which *would* include some moral judgement). It is the first time you ask a question directly related to the morality of the rights given.
"Second, I already explained to you (albeit indirectly) exactly how you can justify a moral claim to me: simply deduce it from a more obvious claim that I already accept!"
What? You mean I can only justify a moral claim if I follow your guidelines?;-) I'm quite sure you can be convinced by a moral claim by deducing it from something obvious which you already accept, but that's hardly making a case that such a thing IS justifying a moral claim. It just means you will accept it more readily because it follows your own criteria of a moral claim. I'm not saying a moral claim is UNjustified when done it your way per sé, I'm saying it's rather...well...arrogant to presume the only way to make a moral claim is by deducing it from something you already accept. I mean, the whole basis for that would be hinging on the question what you accept as something moral, and if I agree with it myself. After all, what is morally obvious to you, might not be for me.
"Don't know what I believe? Guess, and if you're wrong, I'll find the nearest common ground. (We've already been doing a lot of that.)"
This is a rather strange way of debating morals, though if the premises differ, I agree that a common ground may be found. Well, I already said what *I* thought was the moral issue on the matter. Let's say I say you believe that too.
"I know, I know, "but golly gee, I don't see no one put them on a supply demand curve". Yes, I love hearing your folksy, "I know it when I see it" non-rigorous distinctions."
What you mean, 'non-rigorous'? A good is physical and thus inherently scarce, or, by extension, is a legal construct that pertains to a physical good of that nature. If it's not physical and scarce (or does not pertain..etc.) it's not a good. Whether you agree to that or not, the claim is pretty rigorous.
As you don't seem to like some aspects of my posts, I don't like these ones from you. You are trying to make a
"Okay, but it's important that you know exactly where we disagree. I'm not claiming:
1) IP rights enforcement is justified.
I'm only claiming that:
2) Opposition to IP on grounds of non scarcity is flawed, due to a) inconsistency in the use of "scarcity", and b) implicit use of assumptions (about what can be a good) that are even less agreed-upon and therefore don't help."
Yes, I got that. However, point 2 a) can be disputed. Point b) is rather about semantics. I may be a lay person, but when I see 'goods' in an economical sense, it means goods which have value. It's fine if you approach it with the view that *everything* is a good, even friendship and love, but I haven't seen a box of friendhip that I could buy, yet. Most people do not see that as goods. Heck, I doubt even the courts se it as a good (since it is unvaluable and impossible to put a worth on friendship itself - I can't remember any case where the courts condemned someone for stealing friendship, etc.) So, if anything, I would rather think it's you who're forced the debate to hinge on something even less obvious and who's reasoning cannot justify your position.
"However, your implicit assumption, now revealed, is "Oh, and only goods that can be completely expressed in terms of a physical object really count as goods.""
And yours is also reveiled by seeing everything as goods. It's partly a discussion of semantics (though you use it as point b, so you do seem to think it's more then just a semantical diference), and partly I don't agree. Look, it boils down to this: you deem 'intangible goods' as 'economical goods', while I don't. Is this only semantics or not? Well, since part of the discussion is based on the fact whether or not I accept your premise that everything is a good, and thus have to obey to the same rules and laws, it's more than just semantics.
Only, I think we are never going to prove one way or another. Everytime I point out a difference between the two, you look at it the other way around. Basically, you are saying legal constructs define reality, while I claim reality defines the legal constructs. I'm saying value derived from legal constructs alone are artificial, you say its not (or doesn't make a difference). However, an actual good retains its scarcity EVEN if no legal construct is there, while a IP-rights (and the worth they have) do not exist outside the legal framework and constructs. You seem to think this is irrelevant; I don't.
"The fact that at times and places, entities did not have such a legal right (or ability), does not mean it wasn't scarce. (Triple negative ftw.) It simply means that a good for someone, was denied in favor of a good for someone else."
I'm sorry...are you saying that something which doesn't exist is scarce? If it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist. Seems to me I'm not the only one having trouble justifying my reasonings;-)
It seems to me that the real point of discussion is, that you consider 'a desire' to be equal to 'a good', and that is the *only* measure of a good, e.g. the moment there is a desire, it's all a good, and all goods are equal, and thus should all be governed by the same rules and laws, and justified in the same manner. I think this is really what you are alluding at. Granted, it has the appeal of simplicity, but that's also it's downfall. Desires are no goods, they give birth to goods to deal with those desires, and even among goods you have differences (for instance the goods and services you talked about) and thus they should be treated differently. The difference I see between goods is that of *inherent* scarcity or not, and I define 'inherent' as by the nature of the good. I define 'artificial scarcity' as a construct which makes a non-scarce good (by its nature) into a scarce good. My claim is, that it is not because I find the former valid, that I necessarily find the latter valid.
If, however, you are of the opinion all those differences don't matter, the only thing that matters is the desir
I don't think we're ever going to agree, probably because we use different premises.
"Okay, try to give me a teensy weensy bit of credit here by reading my statements in context."
I was, I assure you. I did not mean to imply you denied all reality.
"My claim was that the two goods are real in the same sense: that they both satisfy someone's desire, and that to satisfy someone's desire this way comes at the cost of denying someone else a good."
And once again I think we come to the crux of the matter. You think it's enough that a desire is satisfied to be called a 'real' good, which I deny. I make a further distinction between it being scarce or not (or pertaining to a good that is inherently scarce), before calling it a good (in the economical sense)...which you deny is relevant.
"The relevant construct ("legal right to determine access to information X") *is* inherently scarce."
I couldn't disagree more. (It confuses me though that you now seem to want to demonstrate scarcity, since I thought that didn't matter for you). Look, I've already tried to explain the differene: the scarcity you speak of, is due to a mental/legal construct. The scarcity of a house is due to it's physical limitations. Yes, for both exist constructs, but for the former it is *imperatif* that the construct exist to induce scarcity, and for the latter the scarcity is there, whether or not there is a construct. This is a clear distinction, and whether you find it relevant or not, I can hardly see a refute that that difference is there.
"It is an inherent part of reality that both you and I can't exclusively determine who may access X."
No it is NOT. If it would be an inherent part of reality, it would be universal in nature. However, IP-rights differ from country to country, and some even have none (even western ountries have had none during most of their history). So, if you live in a country where no IP-rights exist, is it *still* an 'inherent part of reality'? If everything falls into the public domain by default, does not everyone have access to it? Is it, therefor, embedded in reality, or embedded in the legal construct? Since, seen the fact that without the legal construct, you don't have scarcity anymore, the scarcity clearly is not due to an inherent part of reality, but to the legal construct.
"There is non-scarcity in many different senses, for which you are being inconsistent. For example, without a second thought, you agree that a homeowner should not be forced to share his house with a second person. Yet, as a physical fact, more than one person can fit in a house, and even thrive. From the fact that a home cannot fit infinite people, it does not follow that it only fits one person. So why should a homeowner be allowed to exclude the second person, when no physical fact prohibits this? The same answer would apply to intellectual property exclusion."
Ok, I think I'm beginning to se where you are comming from, and I think we might have a slightly other interpretation of what (non-)scarcity means. To me, the difference bewteen a scarce good or a non-scarce good is not if it's only usable by one person or more, it's about infinite use or not. Thus, a non-scarce good is limitless: anyone can use it, without depriving anything else for anyone else. A scarce product doesn't. Now, back to your example of the house: sure, one can put a person in it, and even two, and maybe even ten...but we all know that:
1)it's impossible to have limitless number of people in it 2)every person that takes up space (even if it's only one room, or a bed, or whatever), prohibits that use of that space by another person
Those two elements establish it is a scarce good. If it's a scarce good, then the legal construct are waranted, just *because* every person living there uses up something that others can't use any pore at that time. So, if I let one person in my house, or two, or ten, they will all prohibit to some level some use to others, by its very nature of being p
Let's take air again (it's one of the few things I know of that is non-scarce and not related to digital information).
Air is something that people want. Air satisifies at least one person. In some cases, satisfying air for one person, means not-satisfying it for another.
Whoa! What the.... with non-scarce goods, this doesn't make sense. Non scarce goods can satisfy one person, without meaning it can't satisfy another.
"In these cases, we say scarcity arises."
Right.
"One good is access to information. People value this."
If information is not scarce, it can satisfy people without restricting satisfaction for others. The *value* has nothing to do with it. (Much like you say the scarcity doesn't have anything to do with it). Ok, let's continue:
Another good is being able to exclude others' access to air. Some people also value this, for various reasons. Satisfying this good, for the same unit of air, comes at the cost of *not* providing the previous good to another person.
This conflict is not artificial; it impossible for A to exclude X from B, and for B to access X.
How so? How does that conclusion possibly come from the above reasoning? The *whole construct* is artificial; the reason that it becomes impossible for A to exclude air from B, and for B to access air, is *because* of the artifical construct. Because *in reality* B is able to access the air quite well, with or without A's legal construct.
The problem stems from the beginning:
"Another good is being able to exclude others' access to air."
You *can not* exclude others' access to a non-scarce product, because a non-scarce product by its very nature lends itself to be used by an infinite number of people. Thus, the only way to restrict this and exclude people, is by artificial means. With non-scarce goods, others are already and inherently being excluded by the nature of its scarcity. Sure, legal constructs are made there too, but the fact is, even without those constructs it would exclude people (an infinity of people making use of a house is impossible). The validation there, for as far as the construct goes (at least IMHO, and that of the parent poster, I presume), is that the legal construct in that case is necessary because the use of one person by it deprives the use of another.
Without legal constructs, information wouldn't be able to exclude anyone from accessing it, and an infinity of people *would* be able to make use of it without depriving others from using it. Therefor, it can be argumented that a legal construct is not valid in that case, because it is not necessary to deal with the deprivation by the use of the good, since it is non-scarce and it knows no deprivation.
Surely, this indicates both are not the same thing and differ.
Scarcity IS the mean issue here. If you doubt it, think about my example of air on Mars and here on Earth. When it is scarce, things are different then when they are non-scarce. The air may remain the same, the legal construct may be tried the same way...yet, only when it is scarce would a legal ownership have any validity; on earth it would be meaningless and artificial at best.
I think this is the crux of the matter and the reason we do not seem to be able to come to an agreement. If an argumentation is made that "rights" (or 'constructs as goods') should only be validated when they pertain to a real good which is always inherently scarce, and not when it doesn't, then the premise that there is a difference between the two is imperative. If you do not accept the premise (and thus, one rejects there is a difference) than obviously the whole discussion remains moot. I have given many examples of why and where the goods differ; it seems rather futile to say there are *no* diferences. So either you reject it because you are truelly convinced there are no differences, or you think those differences are not relevant. The former seems a bit absurd, and I think it's rather the latter.
However, you may be of the opinion that it is irrelevant, but only because you yourself deem it so as a condition to argue about what is scarce or not. As I've already indicated, one can argument that the scarcity of a good is related to its *inherent* scarcity, and constructs are not *inherently* scarce, thus - in that view - are not scarce. Thus, while you reject the real/non-real distinction, I reject the implication that scarcity can be derived from anything but *inherent scarcity* (or pertains to a good that has inherent scarcity). Seen the fact that IP-rights do not have an inherent scarcity (thus, outside the construct made for them), and they also do not deal with a good that is scarce by its nature (as is the case with digital information), I refute the claim that it is scarce at all and in any way. And since this *is*, in my argumentation, a condition, IP-rights fail in that aspect.
""Information isnt' scarce" does not provide an answer to this"
I think it does, at least partially. Maybe the parent poster was a bit too broad in his claim, which might have caused a seemingly inconsistent reasoning.
Say we live on Mars, and air is scarce. Would one accept a construct in which the property of air is dealt with? I think one would. Now, we live on Earth where the air is inherently non-scarce; would a construct that deals with the ownership of air make sense? No. Why not? Because it isn't rational to make a mental/legal construct on a good that is itself non-scarce. There is no logical necessity for it in the same sense as there was on Mars.
So, what changed? The air was still air, and the construct was the same construct. The only parameter that changed was the fact that in one case, it was scarce, and in the latter it wasn't. So surely scarcity has something to do with the matter.
Anyway, surely you can see that, if one uses the (inherent) scarcity (or a construct that pertains to a inherently scarce good) as a condition to acknowledge the validity, one can remain consistent when finding a house (or the construct dealing with the property of a house) valid, but at the same time finding information (or a construct dealing with the property of information) invalid.
"No; the scarce good is "the exclusive ability to determine who accesses information X", not the information X."
First of all, it's an ability to distribute, not to access. And isn't that ability a state-ordained granting of a monopoly? It seems to me one would be hardpressed to argument the ability to distribute with exclusion of all others is a real ability in the sense that it is, indeed, only the copyrightholder which can distribute as an inherent consequence of the good or the abilities of the author. As practise has shown us, that's not the case, so the scarcity of THAT ability is only a theoretic, artificial scarcity, because the law in most countries make the mental construct of IP-rights lawful.
I don't know how to make it any more clear that there IS a difference: if I have an apple, and I say: everyone may eat it, the one that eats it, deprives all others the eating of that apple. The apple, therefor, is scarce in a non-artificial way. In a country where your rights of property on an apple would not be validated, the apple would *still* be a scare product for the exactly same reason - regardless of whether I'm legally the owner of the apple.
Now, the same example with IP-rights (or the ability to exclude); if I'm in a country which doesn't allow copyrights, is there an iherent scarcity of the information OR the ability to exclude others from distributing it? No. The scarcity is *only* there because the construct for it is there - in contrast with an apple, which is always a scarce product. This shows that there IS a difference (maybe not relevant to you, but soit). If someone, like the parent poster, argues that it is that difference that is decisive, he can not be shown to be wrong a priori with the excuse that there is no difference in regard to the manner in which it is scarce.
"In the case of IP, you are *not* eliminating the scarcity *of the right* by giving it away like that (some kind of copyleft). You are, rather, *removing* the right from yourself."
That's not true: the manner in which I (un)limit my copyright in no way removes it. When linux is released under the GPL, it retains, and is based on, IP-rights; the rights it has is not removed. And yes, you can eliminate the scarcity of the right of excluding others by stating in your copyright that you give the same right (of exclusion) to others. Of course, this would make it clear to everyone that such restriction is artificial, since everyone could prohibit anyone else from distributing it. In essence, one could simply give everyone the same rights as oneself - infinitely...thereby proving the scarcity is artificial.
"You voided a) "Only N3wsbyt3 may determine how this information is distributed" and subtituted b) "anyone may add additional accessors of this information". But you cannot have b) without violating a)."
Voided? You seem under the impression that IP-rights are somehow only valid if only one person has them. This is not the case. The GPL is valid, regardless if it gives more rights than classical copyright, and regardless if more then one person gets them. It is true that a person can determine how scarce the 'good' is: one person to an infinite number of persons. That only shows, again, how artificial the scarcity is. No good (which existence isn't relying on a mental construct) can be 'scarce' and non-scarce at the will of its creator. Once agin, this points to a difference between the two 'goods'. The only reason 'IP-goods' can be non-scarce is, because they ARE non-scarce. This is rather plain logic: a scarce product can never be non-scarce, while a non-scarce product can be made scarce. Therefor, a good that can be both is necessarily non-scarce.
"Define "doesn't really work"."
I define it as not working in the sense that it's obviously not scarce, since anyone has the ability to copy it without making it even more scarce. I could agree the offcicial right of legally having the IP-rights is scarce in the sense that it isn't handed out to everyone, but of course, that is
"I agree information isn't economically scarce. I don't agree that that has any anti-IP implications."
If the argument is, that it has anti-IP implications *because* it isn't economically scarce, than it may well have those implications.
With the analogy of the house (and any real scarce good) one has to agree it *is* economically scarce...maybe that's why and where it derives its own implications from?
After all, NO mental construct is on itself scarce, not even IP-rights. For instance, when I have copyright, I can disallow any one else of distributing, yes...because it is artificially made so... but if I wanted too, I could as well grant my copyright to anyone else wanting to copy my text as well. Thus *in essence* it is not scarce. However, if I choose to let everyone live in my house, it is *inherently* impossible to do so, simply because the good has physical *real* limitations, instead of arbitrary artificial ones.
It is difficult to argument there is no difference between the two, since by its very nature, they are different things; one is based on a mental construct that artificially induces scarcity (which the parent poster obviously doesn't consider to be real scarcity), and the other is based on real scarcity, independend of the artificial scarcity.
So, even when you say an empty house isn't scarce if you let other people in, I think this is not true, because it deprives others from living there. Your counterpoint was, that IP-rights give you the same scarcity, but that also is not true, because even there the scarcity isn't real; one can give everyone the same goods (IP-rights) if one wanted to, and all would be able to obtain them. You just *can't* do that with a house or a real scarce good, because even if you would give the right to everyone to live there, not all would be able to live in that house, due to physical limitations - limitations IP-rights do not have.
"The good that the artist is after is not the information itself, but the ability (or legal right) to exclude others from accessing it. Now, you may disagree that the artist is entitled to such a right, but it cannot be refuted on the grounds of "information not being scarce"."
It seems to me this is a circle-reasoning. The reason it can not be refuted on the grounds of 'information not being scarce' in your opinion, is because that information has been made scarce by a state-ordained monopoly: hardly something that should be considered a free-market tool. However, as you seem to agree on, the information itself is *not* scarce. Therefor, it is an artificially induced scarcity, which doesn't really work in practise (see all the P2P systems in use). The reason why it is so blatantly failing, is exactly because the scarictiy is fully arbitrarily chosen, and not founded in a real measurement of actual scarcity.
In the case of a house, you have that basis. Regardless of a granted monopoly, you just *can not* infinitely use the good (the house) by an infinity number of people. Without a monopoly granted, you can not say the same for IP-rights. So there certainly is a measurable difference.
Even your contention that the monopoly itself is scarce is not always true; it's perfectly possible to have a copyright in which you grant everyone the same rights as yourself, for instance...thus making it infinitely useable - again, something which is not possible with a house, even if one wanted to. So, even with a state-granted monopoly, you *still* can choose to make it infinitely abounded, and then it becomes abounded - which you can't do with something that is *really* scarce: yet again, a difference between IP and a real good.
A mental construct, even in the form of a monopoly, can not be considered scarce on itself.
"I did this to substantiate my point that reforming the U.S. alone would not solve the world's CO2 problems."
Nobody said that; most EU vs. USA posts (which on themselves are often flamewars) on this topic indicate an anger towards the USA for not doing anything (or not enough). almost *every* time something is proposed to do womething about global warming (or reducing illegal timber), the one major country who is against it (or at least hampers it), is the USA. (Granted, the anglo-saxon countries often follow the US' lead, but this is not an excuse for the US to hide behind, on the contrary).
I think the EU is well aware that they too are polluters; that's why they've restricted themselves with all the environmentally friendly rules. But the USa doesn't want any restrictions, because they deem the free-market as all important, and everything that might hamper *that* as something to get rid off. Anyway, it's not that we think the USA is the only polluter, it's that we see that they are the only ones (of importance) that doesn't care and doesn't implement any agreements on the matter.
First of all, even in the time of the Romans (the late republic) the 'pater familias'-rights were already being weakened.
Secondly, the parent poster made the assertion that it was 'inhumane' (I suppose he means not technically, but morally) or 'stupid'...both have not been disproven by the fact such practises once existed.
I mean, during the time of the Romans, pedofile relationships/acts were not deemed illegal neither - but is this an indication we should re-introduce it? What about slavery?
Mind you, I leave all these questions open and I do not want to debate the merrits of this or that with you, but I do not think one can imply say that because something was there in the past, it was the correct way to do it. Suggesting things would be become better if we introduced the pater familias again, is the same as saying things would be better if we introduced pedofilia as a mentoring tool again. In fact, in that case, the latter would make more logical sense, since in the time of the romans (and the ancient greeks), those pedofilic relationships were often in the form of a mentorship (with he explicit goal of teaching the pupil in all matters by the mentor), and were in those instances, non-violent. The pater familias never had any explicit educational goals.
Yet, I still doubt many of those things - deemed common in that time - would be welcomed back in our current civilisation, and are generally seen as corrupt, immoral, inhumane, or stupid. And maybe rightfully so (though it is extremely difficult and maybe unwarranted to pass judgement on another people in another time).
Furthermore, the parent poster is gravely mistaken if he thinks the quality of the legal system would become better. If anything, it would become politicised and far less independend, with all the consequences of a failed system of segregation of powers.
Imagine a judge making a judgement on topics like 'abortion'...is there *any* doubt that, *whatever* the judge decides, there would be outrage by a large part of the populace, who would demand that judge be fired for his 'misjudgement'? Or is he safe when the ruling party, or the majority of the populace agrees with him, but he should be fired when the party-elite changes, or the mentality of the populace changes?
If judges can't rule independendly, then who will judge the judge? The mob? The politicians? Other judges (who also can't rule independendly)?
It is true the curent system is far from ideal, but the proposition made by the former poster would only make things worst.
It's a bit like democcracy itself: we use it, not because it's such a great system, but because all the rest is worse.
"huge" is of course relative. You have companies of 20.000 or more employees, and those are huge by any standards, but I was talking about game-developing companies, which, indeed, do not have tenthousands of developers.
That said, there is no denying EA and Blizzard are one of the big boys within the game-industry, and they are the ones who could afford something new the best.
"They have to be careful to use the resources they have."
Far smaller gamecompanies with a lot less cashbuffer seem to be able to come up with innovative games...yet if your argument was compelling and the main reason, they wouldn't do it, since smaal companies *certainly* have to be careful to use the resources they have. One or two big mistakes, and it could mean they have to close. Granted, many *did* lose that way, but my point is, if such companies can come up with something innovative, why can't Blizzard and EA who would have a lot less risk to go down because of a failed 'new' game?
Personally, I think a mix of established, well-selling games, and some sporadic new, truelly innovative game-developing would be best. Some small companies may have gone too much the way of the latter, but EA and blizzard are definitaly a bit too much focused on the former.
That said, like I pointed out in my former post, I do think they made the right decision in this instance, not to tinker too much with the Starcraft-gameplay.
"Just because someone supports something like this doesn't mean they are ignorant, it just means they might believe differently then you do. And that in itself doesn't make it right or wrong. And neither does any of their opinions."
All opinions are equal. True. That's why you are nothing with mere opinions on themselves, if they are not backed up by facts and logical reasonings (and thus, valid argumentation). Of course, it is true that every political party will try to distort facts and use demagogic tricks to lul people into 'believing differently', but one can not deny that, at least for the moment, the Republicans are doing the most of this (maybe because they are currently in power, I don't know).
When people support something, I would hope they do it on another basis then just because they 'believe' in something, since, if that belief is based on not much more *than* their opinions (or the opinions of politicians) then they ARE ignorant. For instance, if a report comes out that says global warming IS happening, and we ARE the main cause of it - agreed on by a concensus of the majority of scientists - then it IS ignorant to disregard that, because Bush and some lone scientists he diggs up are saying it isn't. It can be your *opinion* that bush is right, and all the rest is wrong, but that opinion is based on ignorance (or willfull disregard of the closest approximation of the actual facts one can get). Since all opinions, viewed on themselves, are equal, it is clear you need something else to substantiate any claims made besides 'It's my opinion'. Opinions can only be shown to be right or wrong, when the basis for those opinions are shown to be right or wrong...but that means one has to agree on some things, such as accepting scientific research as being more worth then mere opinion, that any arguments given must exhibit logical reasoning, that hypocritic and contradictory statements or reasonings weakens the position or claim that is being made, etc.
In all this, one can not exactly say the Republicans (certainly not the Bush-crowd) are making a strong case for themselves and their 'opinions'.
While I see some complain that Starcraft2 is just like Starcraft, I rather think that's just one of it's strengths. I would *hate* to have seen a completely 'revised' starcraft where one could hardly see any link with the old game. Let's face it; it may be true that Blizzard is (much like EA) a rather commercial company (well, they all are, but you know what I mean) who mainly goes for established and proven concepts, and doesn't come up with something daring or original - one must acknowledge they hit the spot with Starcraft. It was one of the best games of the genre in its time. Ah, the wee hours I spend on it (including broodwars). I'm not saying it was perfect (there were some missions who were rather tedious and boring), but all in all it was a great game - and even until this day I play it now and then (I bought it again for 6 euro or so last year; a real bargain, since it STILL looks reasonable and remains as enjoyable as when it came out).
So, yes, Blizzard isn't really an innovative company and only bets on sure moneymakers, and their Starcraft2 is much like Starcraft, only with prettier graphics, a new story, new units, new AI and physics...but really, isn't that new enough for something that already was a superb game (and, as Blizzard well knows, a huge succes)? I think *many* more would complain if Blizzard had taken Starcraft into directions that completely deviated from the old game, frankly. Imagine they made a MMOG out of it...that would have been completely awful (just as when Beth would make the next TES game into a MMOG; a big mistake - though in that case, multiplayer for 4-8 friends to play in it would be cool). All in all, Blizzard did well not to tinker too much with the concept of the game itself; a huge fanbase would be more inclined to turn their backs on them if they would be *too* cavalier in changing an already established and loved game.
That said, I would like to see Blizzard and EA try out something really innovative with a new game, though. It's a bit sad such huge companies dare less then other, often far more smaller game-developing corporations. Yeah, I know; going for the easy money is always...well, easier. But I can't imagine the game-devs themselves wouldn't like to tackle and try out something totally new too, even in those companies.
Not only that, but they're actually so good in their disinformation-game that they succeeded in convincing the american, nay, the world-public at large to believe they've lost the war in Vietnam, while, in fact, it was a huge successtory!
They also want you to believe the insurgency in Iraq is due to their incompetence, but in reality they wanted Abu Graib and the Sadr-uprising to happen! That's how unbelievably smart they are! And you are *all* falling for their little game!
"I said that when I got my first 6Gb drive a decade ago - that was a hell of a step up from 200Mb - now it wouldn't even fit a quarter of my mp3's on it!"
Of course, *we*, your fellow slashdotters, know you meant 6GB legally owned mp3's - obviously, as no slashdotter would even dream of 'pirating' music...but is it really wise to say such things, when the RIAA might possibly be inclined to think otherwise?;-)
"That's something that's always bothered me. They have the technology to fly around at multiples of C and weasley can make nanobots as a school project, but they haven't cured baldness?"
In a technological sense... this makes *no* sense, of course.
One could, however, always speculate that in that era, bald is considered 'sexy' or 'cool', or something.;-)
While we're at it: I think there are inconsistencies that are far worse and not easily explained. It is difficult to imagine, for instance, that death is sexy: I think it's in human nature to want to live as long as possible, and in good health. Now, in one episode, Picard is beamed back into a younger form of himself; as a teenager/kid. It is rather difficult to imagine if this would be indeed possible, that the technology wouldn't be immediately adapted to turn oneself younger, at least to a 20-year old person.
While it's true the basis for it was philosophical in nature (as can be seen with the ancient greeks already (Ptolemaic system), during the time of Galileo and consorts, it was mainly taken over by the (christian) religion and treated as a dogma. Furthermore, whether philosophical or religious in nature, fact remains, it wasn't due to scientific consensus, since the scientific community (nor methodology) wasn't established yet.
"And as to that you can go more recently, in the 50's and 60's (even into the early '70') the scientific "consensus" was that the Big Bang theory was nonsense."
Really? Can you provide a link to a paper that clearly demonstrates the *majority* of scientists agreed that the big bang was nonsense?
Now, mind you, I don't even claim that a scientific consensus can be wrong as well; ultimately, every new theory that overthrows the old one is indicative that the old one was widely accepted first, obviously. The scientific method, however, ensures that any theory, new or old, gets more accurate (or gets debunked) as time passes (and observed/studied more). In that view, it's rather clear that the times where a scientific consensus is reached by a new theory, it is more often right then wrong, certainly if the facts indicate a growing level of susbstantiation for the theory.
In short: if the global warming theory would be false, continued research would have given ever more indications that it *is* false. In reality, however, every year of additional research has *added* to the growing validity of the theory. However one wants to put it, this shows that it is far more likely to be true then it is unlikely...and while science will never give you an absolute answer, what better concept or method will yield more accurate predictions and get the closest approximation of the observable reality? Philosophy? Religion?
"Yeah that's right scientific consensus is always right. Just ask Galileo, or Copernicus."
Dude...even a cursory understanding of history would have revealed that the 'consensus' that the Earth was the center of the universe was based on a religious dogma, not a scientific consensus. There was no established scientific community to come to a consensus back then.
Slashdot Mirror
*65* years? That seems way over the top. Why can't laws just reflect some reason in the usa?
Yes, sure...he did more then just spam. But even murderers often come off with less then 65 years, so is spam, impersonating people, using botnets, etc. *really* worse than murdering people?
People should get a grip.
I'm all for laws against spam and all the rest of it, but hell, 5 years + a considerable fine is more than enough.
I already knew that the USA had a strong 'corporatism' going instead of something more democratic, but I always figgered the 'lobbying' was much the same as in my country, exept for the cap on the amount.
But following your link, am I to understand that senators get the money *personally*? I mean, is it for the individual itself? Because in my country, the money given is legally transferred to the party of said politician. I even don't like that system, because it's in effect still bribery with a proxy. But am I to understand that in the US, you can actually pay an individual senator? How is this different from actually..well, just bribing him?
I always thought the 'legal bribery' part of USA politics was slightly ironic...but it isn't?
What does the USA law say about giving money to politicians, and where/why does it make a difference between paying money to one and bribing him? Is the difference that a senator explicitly says he will change his politics if he is given money - thus, if he just do it without explicitly saying so it remains legal?
Can anyone link me to a site where the legality of bribing/lobbying is explained?
""It has come to MySpace's attention that you are a registered sex offender in one or more jurisdictions," the email said. "MySpace is committed to removing registered sex offenders from its site, and will take all necessary means to block or remove anyone it determines to pose a threat to its users.""
Ok, this distrubs me because IF the latter statement would be true, a lot more then just sex-offenders should be removed. Fact is, as always - especially in the USA - the reeal focus is the 'sex' part, not the 'feel safe' excuse. So, what, a sex offender poses a threat to its users, but, say, a serial killer doesn't? If they were really serious about their proclaimed goal, they should remove *everyone* with a criminal record.
I've never understood the implied argument that, somehow, sex offenders are the worst criminals that walk this earth, and the law therefor has to focus on them. I agree raping people is morally wrong and a criminal act...but is it worse than someone who kills people? There are still crimes that are worse, IMHO, and yet serial killers seem to have it easier then sex offenders.
Logically, this doesn't make sense, unless one deems rape worse than murder.
"No. My point all along is the opposite: your conclusions simply don't follow, even when I accept your premises, either because you make subtle but significant shifts in their meaning, or because you arbitrarily decide when your principles apply and when they don't."
;-)
Ummm...I already said in the former post I gather you think that. I have than continued to show why it was consistent. Alas, you simply do not accept it, mainly because you don't accept the premise (namely that not everyhting is goods, or, if you want to call all things goods - as you do - the differences between those goods warrant a difference about the legal construct that pertain to them too. You simply do not accept that.
Fine. But it doesn't follow my reasoning is inconsistent. I make a distinction between scarce and non-scarce, and artifial scarcity and inherent scarcity; on that my difference is based, and on that my conclusion is based that the rights given differ in moral value too. You do not acknowledge those differences, or think them irrelevant. Thus, you dispute my premise. With all your examples, though, you have never given me one where the good was scarce AND inherent/non-artificial and yet I would contradict my own reasonings. Every time you bring up the house, you say: "See, you're not being consistent"...but I've explained in vain many times by now, that a house (as an inherent scarce good) is something very different then a legal construct (as an artificial scarce good) itself. You simply do not accept that....BUT if you do, then my reasoning is fully consistent.
"Look, you are making claims about how things *should* be and what kind of claims *should* be honored. Those are moral claims."
No, we were making claims about the differences between goods (and especially about the scarcity) and how relevant they are. You yourself have continued to say you don't mean to indicate you are for or against IP-rights itself (which *would* include some moral judgement). It is the first time you ask a question directly related to the morality of the rights given.
"Second, I already explained to you (albeit indirectly) exactly how you can justify a moral claim to me: simply deduce it from a more obvious claim that I already accept!"
What? You mean I can only justify a moral claim if I follow your guidelines?
I'm quite sure you can be convinced by a moral claim by deducing it from something obvious which you already accept, but that's hardly making a case that such a thing IS justifying a moral claim. It just means you will accept it more readily because it follows your own criteria of a moral claim. I'm not saying a moral claim is UNjustified when done it your way per sé, I'm saying it's rather...well...arrogant to presume the only way to make a moral claim is by deducing it from something you already accept. I mean, the whole basis for that would be hinging on the question what you accept as something moral, and if I agree with it myself. After all, what is morally obvious to you, might not be for me.
"Don't know what I believe? Guess, and if you're wrong, I'll find the nearest common ground. (We've already been doing a lot of that.)"
This is a rather strange way of debating morals, though if the premises differ, I agree that a common ground may be found. Well, I already said what *I* thought was the moral issue on the matter. Let's say I say you believe that too.
"I know, I know, "but golly gee, I don't see no one put them on a supply demand curve". Yes, I love hearing your folksy, "I know it when I see it" non-rigorous distinctions."
What you mean, 'non-rigorous'? A good is physical and thus inherently scarce, or, by extension, is a legal construct that pertains to a physical good of that nature. If it's not physical and scarce (or does not pertain..etc.) it's not a good. Whether you agree to that or not, the claim is pretty rigorous.
As you don't seem to like some aspects of my posts, I don't like these ones from you. You are trying to make a
"Okay, but it's important that you know exactly where we disagree. I'm not claiming:
;-)
1) IP rights enforcement is justified.
I'm only claiming that:
2) Opposition to IP on grounds of non scarcity is flawed, due to a) inconsistency in the use of "scarcity", and b) implicit use of assumptions (about what can be a good) that are even less agreed-upon and therefore don't help."
Yes, I got that. However, point 2 a) can be disputed. Point b) is rather about semantics. I may be a lay person, but when I see 'goods' in an economical sense, it means goods which have value. It's fine if you approach it with the view that *everything* is a good, even friendship and love, but I haven't seen a box of friendhip that I could buy, yet. Most people do not see that as goods. Heck, I doubt even the courts se it as a good (since it is unvaluable and impossible to put a worth on friendship itself - I can't remember any case where the courts condemned someone for stealing friendship, etc.) So, if anything, I would rather think it's you who're forced the debate to hinge on something even less obvious and who's reasoning cannot justify your position.
"However, your implicit assumption, now revealed, is "Oh, and only goods that can be completely expressed in terms of a physical object really count as goods.""
And yours is also reveiled by seeing everything as goods. It's partly a discussion of semantics (though you use it as point b, so you do seem to think it's more then just a semantical diference), and partly I don't agree. Look, it boils down to this: you deem 'intangible goods' as 'economical goods', while I don't. Is this only semantics or not? Well, since part of the discussion is based on the fact whether or not I accept your premise that everything is a good, and thus have to obey to the same rules and laws, it's more than just semantics.
Only, I think we are never going to prove one way or another. Everytime I point out a difference between the two, you look at it the other way around. Basically, you are saying legal constructs define reality, while I claim reality defines the legal constructs. I'm saying value derived from legal constructs alone are artificial, you say its not (or doesn't make a difference). However, an actual good retains its scarcity EVEN if no legal construct is there, while a IP-rights (and the worth they have) do not exist outside the legal framework and constructs. You seem to think this is irrelevant; I don't.
"The fact that at times and places, entities did not have such a legal right (or ability), does not mean it wasn't scarce. (Triple negative ftw.) It simply means that a good for someone, was denied in favor of a good for someone else."
I'm sorry...are you saying that something which doesn't exist is scarce? If it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist. Seems to me I'm not the only one having trouble justifying my reasonings
It seems to me that the real point of discussion is, that you consider 'a desire' to be equal to 'a good', and that is the *only* measure of a good, e.g. the moment there is a desire, it's all a good, and all goods are equal, and thus should all be governed by the same rules and laws, and justified in the same manner. I think this is really what you are alluding at. Granted, it has the appeal of simplicity, but that's also it's downfall. Desires are no goods, they give birth to goods to deal with those desires, and even among goods you have differences (for instance the goods and services you talked about) and thus they should be treated differently. The difference I see between goods is that of *inherent* scarcity or not, and I define 'inherent' as by the nature of the good. I define 'artificial scarcity' as a construct which makes a non-scarce good (by its nature) into a scarce good. My claim is, that it is not because I find the former valid, that I necessarily find the latter valid.
If, however, you are of the opinion all those differences don't matter, the only thing that matters is the desir
Heh.
I don't think we're ever going to agree, probably because we use different premises.
"Okay, try to give me a teensy weensy bit of credit here by reading my statements in context."
I was, I assure you. I did not mean to imply you denied all reality.
"My claim was that the two goods are real in the same sense: that they both satisfy someone's desire, and that to satisfy someone's desire this way comes at the cost of denying someone else a good."
And once again I think we come to the crux of the matter. You think it's enough that a desire is satisfied to be called a 'real' good, which I deny. I make a further distinction between it being scarce or not (or pertaining to a good that is inherently scarce), before calling it a good (in the economical sense)...which you deny is relevant.
"The relevant construct ("legal right to determine access to information X") *is* inherently scarce."
I couldn't disagree more. (It confuses me though that you now seem to want to demonstrate scarcity, since I thought that didn't matter for you). Look, I've already tried to explain the differene: the scarcity you speak of, is due to a mental/legal construct. The scarcity of a house is due to it's physical limitations. Yes, for both exist constructs, but for the former it is *imperatif* that the construct exist to induce scarcity, and for the latter the scarcity is there, whether or not there is a construct. This is a clear distinction, and whether you find it relevant or not, I can hardly see a refute that that difference is there.
"It is an inherent part of reality that both you and I can't exclusively determine who may access X."
No it is NOT. If it would be an inherent part of reality, it would be universal in nature. However, IP-rights differ from country to country, and some even have none (even western ountries have had none during most of their history). So, if you live in a country where no IP-rights exist, is it *still* an 'inherent part of reality'? If everything falls into the public domain by default, does not everyone have access to it? Is it, therefor, embedded in reality, or embedded in the legal construct? Since, seen the fact that without the legal construct, you don't have scarcity anymore, the scarcity clearly is not due to an inherent part of reality, but to the legal construct.
"There is non-scarcity in many different senses, for which you are being inconsistent. For example, without a second thought, you agree that a homeowner should not be forced to share his house with a second person. Yet, as a physical fact, more than one person can fit in a house, and even thrive. From the fact that a home cannot fit infinite people, it does not follow that it only fits one person. So why should a homeowner be allowed to exclude the second person, when no physical fact prohibits this? The same answer would apply to intellectual property exclusion."
Ok, I think I'm beginning to se where you are comming from, and I think we might have a slightly other interpretation of what (non-)scarcity means. To me, the difference bewteen a scarce good or a non-scarce good is not if it's only usable by one person or more, it's about infinite use or not. Thus, a non-scarce good is limitless: anyone can use it, without depriving anything else for anyone else. A scarce product doesn't. Now, back to your example of the house: sure, one can put a person in it, and even two, and maybe even ten...but we all know that:
1)it's impossible to have limitless number of people in it
2)every person that takes up space (even if it's only one room, or a bed, or whatever), prohibits that use of that space by another person
Those two elements establish it is a scarce good. If it's a scarce good, then the legal construct are waranted, just *because* every person living there uses up something that others can't use any pore at that time. So, if I let one person in my house, or two, or ten, they will all prohibit to some level some use to others, by its very nature of being p
another small side-note:
Let's take air again (it's one of the few things I know of that is non-scarce and not related to digital information).
Air is something that people want. Air satisifies at least one person. In some cases, satisfying air for one person, means not-satisfying it for another.
Whoa! What the.... with non-scarce goods, this doesn't make sense. Non scarce goods can satisfy one person, without meaning it can't satisfy another.
"In these cases, we say scarcity arises."
Right.
"One good is access to information. People value this."
If information is not scarce, it can satisfy people without restricting satisfaction for others. The *value* has nothing to do with it. (Much like you say the scarcity doesn't have anything to do with it). Ok, let's continue:
Another good is being able to exclude others' access to air. Some people also value this, for various reasons. Satisfying this good, for the same unit of air, comes at the cost of *not* providing the previous good to another person.
This conflict is not artificial; it impossible for A to exclude X from B, and for B to access X.
How so? How does that conclusion possibly come from the above reasoning? The *whole construct* is artificial; the reason that it becomes impossible for A to exclude air from B, and for B to access air, is *because* of the artifical construct. Because *in reality* B is able to access the air quite well, with or without A's legal construct.
The problem stems from the beginning:
"Another good is being able to exclude others' access to air."
You *can not* exclude others' access to a non-scarce product, because a non-scarce product by its very nature lends itself to be used by an infinite number of people. Thus, the only way to restrict this and exclude people, is by artificial means. With non-scarce goods, others are already and inherently being excluded by the nature of its scarcity. Sure, legal constructs are made there too, but the fact is, even without those constructs it would exclude people (an infinity of people making use of a house is impossible). The validation there, for as far as the construct goes (at least IMHO, and that of the parent poster, I presume), is that the legal construct in that case is necessary because the use of one person by it deprives the use of another.
Without legal constructs, information wouldn't be able to exclude anyone from accessing it, and an infinity of people *would* be able to make use of it without depriving others from using it. Therefor, it can be argumented that a legal construct is not valid in that case, because it is not necessary to deal with the deprivation by the use of the good, since it is non-scarce and it knows no deprivation.
Surely, this indicates both are not the same thing and differ.
Scarcity IS the mean issue here. If you doubt it, think about my example of air on Mars and here on Earth. When it is scarce, things are different then when they are non-scarce. The air may remain the same, the legal construct may be tried the same way...yet, only when it is scarce would a legal ownership have any validity; on earth it would be meaningless and artificial at best.
"I reject the real/non-real distinction."
I think this is the crux of the matter and the reason we do not seem to be able to come to an agreement. If an argumentation is made that "rights" (or 'constructs as goods') should only be validated when they pertain to a real good which is always inherently scarce, and not when it doesn't, then the premise that there is a difference between the two is imperative. If you do not accept the premise (and thus, one rejects there is a difference) than obviously the whole discussion remains moot. I have given many examples of why and where the goods differ; it seems rather futile to say there are *no* diferences. So either you reject it because you are truelly convinced there are no differences, or you think those differences are not relevant. The former seems a bit absurd, and I think it's rather the latter.
However, you may be of the opinion that it is irrelevant, but only because you yourself deem it so as a condition to argue about what is scarce or not. As I've already indicated, one can argument that the scarcity of a good is related to its *inherent* scarcity, and constructs are not *inherently* scarce, thus - in that view - are not scarce. Thus, while you reject the real/non-real distinction, I reject the implication that scarcity can be derived from anything but *inherent scarcity* (or pertains to a good that has inherent scarcity). Seen the fact that IP-rights do not have an inherent scarcity (thus, outside the construct made for them), and they also do not deal with a good that is scarce by its nature (as is the case with digital information), I refute the claim that it is scarce at all and in any way. And since this *is*, in my argumentation, a condition, IP-rights fail in that aspect.
""Information isnt' scarce" does not provide an answer to this"
I think it does, at least partially. Maybe the parent poster was a bit too broad in his claim, which might have caused a seemingly inconsistent reasoning.
Say we live on Mars, and air is scarce. Would one accept a construct in which the property of air is dealt with? I think one would. Now, we live on Earth where the air is inherently non-scarce; would a construct that deals with the ownership of air make sense? No. Why not? Because it isn't rational to make a mental/legal construct on a good that is itself non-scarce. There is no logical necessity for it in the same sense as there was on Mars.
So, what changed? The air was still air, and the construct was the same construct. The only parameter that changed was the fact that in one case, it was scarce, and in the latter it wasn't. So surely scarcity has something to do with the matter.
Anyway, surely you can see that, if one uses the (inherent) scarcity (or a construct that pertains to a inherently scarce good) as a condition to acknowledge the validity, one can remain consistent when finding a house (or the construct dealing with the property of a house) valid, but at the same time finding information (or a construct dealing with the property of information) invalid.
"No; the scarce good is "the exclusive ability to determine who accesses information X", not the information X."
First of all, it's an ability to distribute, not to access. And isn't that ability a state-ordained granting of a monopoly? It seems to me one would be hardpressed to argument the ability to distribute with exclusion of all others is a real ability in the sense that it is, indeed, only the copyrightholder which can distribute as an inherent consequence of the good or the abilities of the author. As practise has shown us, that's not the case, so the scarcity of THAT ability is only a theoretic, artificial scarcity, because the law in most countries make the mental construct of IP-rights lawful.
I don't know how to make it any more clear that there IS a difference: if I have an apple, and I say: everyone may eat it, the one that eats it, deprives all others the eating of that apple. The apple, therefor, is scarce in a non-artificial way. In a country where your rights of property on an apple would not be validated, the apple would *still* be a scare product for the exactly same reason - regardless of whether I'm legally the owner of the apple.
Now, the same example with IP-rights (or the ability to exclude); if I'm in a country which doesn't allow copyrights, is there an iherent scarcity of the information OR the ability to exclude others from distributing it? No. The scarcity is *only* there because the construct for it is there - in contrast with an apple, which is always a scarce product. This shows that there IS a difference (maybe not relevant to you, but soit). If someone, like the parent poster, argues that it is that difference that is decisive, he can not be shown to be wrong a priori with the excuse that there is no difference in regard to the manner in which it is scarce.
"In the case of IP, you are *not* eliminating the scarcity *of the right* by giving it away like that (some kind of copyleft). You are, rather, *removing* the right from yourself."
That's not true: the manner in which I (un)limit my copyright in no way removes it. When linux is released under the GPL, it retains, and is based on, IP-rights; the rights it has is not removed. And yes, you can eliminate the scarcity of the right of excluding others by stating in your copyright that you give the same right (of exclusion) to others. Of course, this would make it clear to everyone that such restriction is artificial, since everyone could prohibit anyone else from distributing it. In essence, one could simply give everyone the same rights as oneself - infinitely...thereby proving the scarcity is artificial.
"You voided a) "Only N3wsbyt3 may determine how this information is distributed" and subtituted b) "anyone may add additional accessors of this information". But you cannot have b) without violating a)."
Voided? You seem under the impression that IP-rights are somehow only valid if only one person has them. This is not the case. The GPL is valid, regardless if it gives more rights than classical copyright, and regardless if more then one person gets them. It is true that a person can determine how scarce the 'good' is: one person to an infinite number of persons. That only shows, again, how artificial the scarcity is. No good (which existence isn't relying on a mental construct) can be 'scarce' and non-scarce at the will of its creator. Once agin, this points to a difference between the two 'goods'. The only reason 'IP-goods' can be non-scarce is, because they ARE non-scarce. This is rather plain logic: a scarce product can never be non-scarce, while a non-scarce product can be made scarce. Therefor, a good that can be both is necessarily non-scarce.
"Define "doesn't really work"."
I define it as not working in the sense that it's obviously not scarce, since anyone has the ability to copy it without making it even more scarce. I could agree the offcicial right of legally having the IP-rights is scarce in the sense that it isn't handed out to everyone, but of course, that is
"I agree information isn't economically scarce. I don't agree that that has any anti-IP implications."
If the argument is, that it has anti-IP implications *because* it isn't economically scarce, than it may well have those implications.
With the analogy of the house (and any real scarce good) one has to agree it *is* economically scarce...maybe that's why and where it derives its own implications from?
After all, NO mental construct is on itself scarce, not even IP-rights. For instance, when I have copyright, I can disallow any one else of distributing, yes...because it is artificially made so... but if I wanted too, I could as well grant my copyright to anyone else wanting to copy my text as well. Thus *in essence* it is not scarce. However, if I choose to let everyone live in my house, it is *inherently* impossible to do so, simply because the good has physical *real* limitations, instead of arbitrary artificial ones.
It is difficult to argument there is no difference between the two, since by its very nature, they are different things; one is based on a mental construct that artificially induces scarcity (which the parent poster obviously doesn't consider to be real scarcity), and the other is based on real scarcity, independend of the artificial scarcity.
So, even when you say an empty house isn't scarce if you let other people in, I think this is not true, because it deprives others from living there. Your counterpoint was, that IP-rights give you the same scarcity, but that also is not true, because even there the scarcity isn't real; one can give everyone the same goods (IP-rights) if one wanted to, and all would be able to obtain them. You just *can't* do that with a house or a real scarce good, because even if you would give the right to everyone to live there, not all would be able to live in that house, due to physical limitations - limitations IP-rights do not have.
"The good that the artist is after is not the information itself, but the ability (or legal right) to exclude others from accessing it. Now, you may disagree that the artist is entitled to such a right, but it cannot be refuted on the grounds of "information not being scarce"."
It seems to me this is a circle-reasoning. The reason it can not be refuted on the grounds of 'information not being scarce' in your opinion, is because that information has been made scarce by a state-ordained monopoly: hardly something that should be considered a free-market tool. However, as you seem to agree on, the information itself is *not* scarce. Therefor, it is an artificially induced scarcity, which doesn't really work in practise (see all the P2P systems in use). The reason why it is so blatantly failing, is exactly because the scarictiy is fully arbitrarily chosen, and not founded in a real measurement of actual scarcity.
In the case of a house, you have that basis. Regardless of a granted monopoly, you just *can not* infinitely use the good (the house) by an infinity number of people. Without a monopoly granted, you can not say the same for IP-rights. So there certainly is a measurable difference.
Even your contention that the monopoly itself is scarce is not always true; it's perfectly possible to have a copyright in which you grant everyone the same rights as yourself, for instance...thus making it infinitely useable - again, something which is not possible with a house, even if one wanted to. So, even with a state-granted monopoly, you *still* can choose to make it infinitely abounded, and then it becomes abounded - which you can't do with something that is *really* scarce: yet again, a difference between IP and a real good.
A mental construct, even in the form of a monopoly, can not be considered scarce on itself.
"I did this to substantiate my point that reforming the U.S. alone would not solve the world's CO2 problems."
Nobody said that; most EU vs. USA posts (which on themselves are often flamewars) on this topic indicate an anger towards the USA for not doing anything (or not enough). almost *every* time something is proposed to do womething about global warming (or reducing illegal timber), the one major country who is against it (or at least hampers it), is the USA. (Granted, the anglo-saxon countries often follow the US' lead, but this is not an excuse for the US to hide behind, on the contrary).
I think the EU is well aware that they too are polluters; that's why they've restricted themselves with all the environmentally friendly rules. But the USa doesn't want any restrictions, because they deem the free-market as all important, and everything that might hamper *that* as something to get rid off. Anyway, it's not that we think the USA is the only polluter, it's that we see that they are the only ones (of importance) that doesn't care and doesn't implement any agreements on the matter.
First of all, even in the time of the Romans (the late republic) the 'pater familias'-rights were already being weakened.
Secondly, the parent poster made the assertion that it was 'inhumane' (I suppose he means not technically, but morally) or 'stupid'...both have not been disproven by the fact such practises once existed.
I mean, during the time of the Romans, pedofile relationships/acts were not deemed illegal neither - but is this an indication we should re-introduce it? What about slavery?
Mind you, I leave all these questions open and I do not want to debate the merrits of this or that with you, but I do not think one can imply say that because something was there in the past, it was the correct way to do it. Suggesting things would be become better if we introduced the pater familias again, is the same as saying things would be better if we introduced pedofilia as a mentoring tool again. In fact, in that case, the latter would make more logical sense, since in the time of the romans (and the ancient greeks), those pedofilic relationships were often in the form of a mentorship (with he explicit goal of teaching the pupil in all matters by the mentor), and were in those instances, non-violent. The pater familias never had any explicit educational goals.
Yet, I still doubt many of those things - deemed common in that time - would be welcomed back in our current civilisation, and are generally seen as corrupt, immoral, inhumane, or stupid. And maybe rightfully so (though it is extremely difficult and maybe unwarranted to pass judgement on another people in another time).
Furthermore, the parent poster is gravely mistaken if he thinks the quality of the legal system would become better. If anything, it would become politicised and far less independend, with all the consequences of a failed system of segregation of powers.
Imagine a judge making a judgement on topics like 'abortion'...is there *any* doubt that, *whatever* the judge decides, there would be outrage by a large part of the populace, who would demand that judge be fired for his 'misjudgement'? Or is he safe when the ruling party, or the majority of the populace agrees with him, but he should be fired when the party-elite changes, or the mentality of the populace changes?
If judges can't rule independendly, then who will judge the judge? The mob? The politicians? Other judges (who also can't rule independendly)?
It is true the curent system is far from ideal, but the proposition made by the former poster would only make things worst.
It's a bit like democcracy itself: we use it, not because it's such a great system, but because all the rest is worse.
A MS-funded study says the GPL3 is a badly done job? Then Stallman must be going in the right direction after all!
"huge" is of course relative. You have companies of 20.000 or more employees, and those are huge by any standards, but I was talking about game-developing companies, which, indeed, do not have tenthousands of developers.
That said, there is no denying EA and Blizzard are one of the big boys within the game-industry, and they are the ones who could afford something new the best.
"They have to be careful to use the resources they have."
Far smaller gamecompanies with a lot less cashbuffer seem to be able to come up with innovative games...yet if your argument was compelling and the main reason, they wouldn't do it, since smaal companies *certainly* have to be careful to use the resources they have. One or two big mistakes, and it could mean they have to close. Granted, many *did* lose that way, but my point is, if such companies can come up with something innovative, why can't Blizzard and EA who would have a lot less risk to go down because of a failed 'new' game?
Personally, I think a mix of established, well-selling games, and some sporadic new, truelly innovative game-developing would be best. Some small companies may have gone too much the way of the latter, but EA and blizzard are definitaly a bit too much focused on the former.
That said, like I pointed out in my former post, I do think they made the right decision in this instance, not to tinker too much with the Starcraft-gameplay.
"Just because someone supports something like this doesn't mean they are ignorant, it just means they might believe differently then you do. And that in itself doesn't make it right or wrong. And neither does any of their opinions."
All opinions are equal. True. That's why you are nothing with mere opinions on themselves, if they are not backed up by facts and logical reasonings (and thus, valid argumentation). Of course, it is true that every political party will try to distort facts and use demagogic tricks to lul people into 'believing differently', but one can not deny that, at least for the moment, the Republicans are doing the most of this (maybe because they are currently in power, I don't know).
When people support something, I would hope they do it on another basis then just because they 'believe' in something, since, if that belief is based on not much more *than* their opinions (or the opinions of politicians) then they ARE ignorant. For instance, if a report comes out that says global warming IS happening, and we ARE the main cause of it - agreed on by a concensus of the majority of scientists - then it IS ignorant to disregard that, because Bush and some lone scientists he diggs up are saying it isn't. It can be your *opinion* that bush is right, and all the rest is wrong, but that opinion is based on ignorance (or willfull disregard of the closest approximation of the actual facts one can get). Since all opinions, viewed on themselves, are equal, it is clear you need something else to substantiate any claims made besides 'It's my opinion'. Opinions can only be shown to be right or wrong, when the basis for those opinions are shown to be right or wrong...but that means one has to agree on some things, such as accepting scientific research as being more worth then mere opinion, that any arguments given must exhibit logical reasoning, that hypocritic and contradictory statements or reasonings weakens the position or claim that is being made, etc.
In all this, one can not exactly say the Republicans (certainly not the Bush-crowd) are making a strong case for themselves and their 'opinions'.
While I see some complain that Starcraft2 is just like Starcraft, I rather think that's just one of it's strengths. I would *hate* to have seen a completely 'revised' starcraft where one could hardly see any link with the old game. Let's face it; it may be true that Blizzard is (much like EA) a rather commercial company (well, they all are, but you know what I mean) who mainly goes for established and proven concepts, and doesn't come up with something daring or original - one must acknowledge they hit the spot with Starcraft. It was one of the best games of the genre in its time. Ah, the wee hours I spend on it (including broodwars). I'm not saying it was perfect (there were some missions who were rather tedious and boring), but all in all it was a great game - and even until this day I play it now and then (I bought it again for 6 euro or so last year; a real bargain, since it STILL looks reasonable and remains as enjoyable as when it came out).
So, yes, Blizzard isn't really an innovative company and only bets on sure moneymakers, and their Starcraft2 is much like Starcraft, only with prettier graphics, a new story, new units, new AI and physics...but really, isn't that new enough for something that already was a superb game (and, as Blizzard well knows, a huge succes)? I think *many* more would complain if Blizzard had taken Starcraft into directions that completely deviated from the old game, frankly. Imagine they made a MMOG out of it...that would have been completely awful (just as when Beth would make the next TES game into a MMOG; a big mistake - though in that case, multiplayer for 4-8 friends to play in it would be cool). All in all, Blizzard did well not to tinker too much with the concept of the game itself; a huge fanbase would be more inclined to turn their backs on them if they would be *too* cavalier in changing an already established and loved game.
That said, I would like to see Blizzard and EA try out something really innovative with a new game, though. It's a bit sad such huge companies dare less then other, often far more smaller game-developing corporations. Yeah, I know; going for the easy money is always...well, easier. But I can't imagine the game-devs themselves wouldn't like to tackle and try out something totally new too, even in those companies.
Not only that, but they're actually so good in their disinformation-game that they succeeded in convincing the american, nay, the world-public at large to believe they've lost the war in Vietnam, while, in fact, it was a huge successtory!
They also want you to believe the insurgency in Iraq is due to their incompetence, but in reality they wanted Abu Graib and the Sadr-uprising to happen! That's how unbelievably smart they are! And you are *all* falling for their little game!
"It seems rather foolish to think that ignorant people are all bush supporters."
I agree. Let's say the vast majority of the most ignorant people are Bush supporters.
"Doesn't that byte?"
It does Byte, but it's not News.
"I said that when I got my first 6Gb drive a decade ago - that was a hell of a step up from 200Mb - now it wouldn't even fit a quarter of my mp3's on it!"
;-)
Of course, *we*, your fellow slashdotters, know you meant 6GB legally owned mp3's - obviously, as no slashdotter would even dream of 'pirating' music...but is it really wise to say such things, when the RIAA might possibly be inclined to think otherwise?
"That's something that's always bothered me. They have the technology to fly around at multiples of C and weasley can make nanobots as a school project, but they haven't cured baldness?"
;-)
In a technological sense... this makes *no* sense, of course.
One could, however, always speculate that in that era, bald is considered 'sexy' or 'cool', or something.
While we're at it: I think there are inconsistencies that are far worse and not easily explained. It is difficult to imagine, for instance, that death is sexy: I think it's in human nature to want to live as long as possible, and in good health. Now, in one episode, Picard is beamed back into a younger form of himself; as a teenager/kid. It is rather difficult to imagine if this would be indeed possible, that the technology wouldn't be immediately adapted to turn oneself younger, at least to a 20-year old person.
While it's true the basis for it was philosophical in nature (as can be seen with the ancient greeks already (Ptolemaic system), during the time of Galileo and consorts, it was mainly taken over by the (christian) religion and treated as a dogma. Furthermore, whether philosophical or religious in nature, fact remains, it wasn't due to scientific consensus, since the scientific community (nor methodology) wasn't established yet.
"And as to that you can go more recently, in the 50's and 60's (even into the early '70') the scientific "consensus" was that the Big Bang theory was nonsense."
Really? Can you provide a link to a paper that clearly demonstrates the *majority* of scientists agreed that the big bang was nonsense?
Now, mind you, I don't even claim that a scientific consensus can be wrong as well; ultimately, every new theory that overthrows the old one is indicative that the old one was widely accepted first, obviously. The scientific method, however, ensures that any theory, new or old, gets more accurate (or gets debunked) as time passes (and observed/studied more). In that view, it's rather clear that the times where a scientific consensus is reached by a new theory, it is more often right then wrong, certainly if the facts indicate a growing level of susbstantiation for the theory.
In short: if the global warming theory would be false, continued research would have given ever more indications that it *is* false. In reality, however, every year of additional research has *added* to the growing validity of the theory. However one wants to put it, this shows that it is far more likely to be true then it is unlikely...and while science will never give you an absolute answer, what better concept or method will yield more accurate predictions and get the closest approximation of the observable reality? Philosophy? Religion?
I don't think so.
"Yeah that's right scientific consensus is always right. Just ask Galileo, or Copernicus."
Dude...even a cursory understanding of history would have revealed that the 'consensus' that the Earth was the center of the universe was based on a religious dogma, not a scientific consensus. There was no established scientific community to come to a consensus back then.