"We've all read some of the overlong slashdot replies/nerd emails that go to great lengths and painstaking detail, dismantling every aspect of the parent poster's point. Usually these posts include specific references to higher authority - textbooks, articles, past examples and other random websites."
I do not know what you mean. I've never seen anything like the things you describe, and even a more in-depth analysis of your claims show no signs that the point you make has any validity. Painstanking detail? Dismantling every aspect of a post? I would like to refer you to the researchpaper "On the origin of debating posts on slashdot" by Anonymous Coward, where it is clearly proven that what you describe has never been substantiated, nay, not even an example could be found to demonstrate...
"That story is the _best_ argument FOR public funding."
That's what I said.
"Wolfram only announces this (rather small) price to get publicity for his NKS bullshit, and sell more books. So in fact, the whole procedure will actually create a net loss in knowledge and intelligence (people that will work on it get dumber, and dont create useful knowledge in the meantime)."
Seen the quality of your counter-arguments, you'd better hope everyone reading your post is retarded.
"Um, I actually agree with your comment about why fund wars."
I actually do too. But that was just to show how some things may be more 'obvious to agree on' than others. The principle remains the same though; one could argument that military strength is necessary to safekeep the country. And wars...well, *nobody* will say they are a proponent of war - but yet, people accept the state spending billions and billions on the Iraqi war. And one can't really say it's a fluke, or people are all that oposed to it, because evry 10-20 years, the USA is involved in *some* war, whatever the political party is in power. (And europe didn't do much better during most of its history, exept for the last 50 years).
While there is protest going on, one can not claim it's of primordial importance to most people, apparently. Bush was voted in office a second time, after all. And the populace isn't really going to punish the republicans for beginning a war instead of spending it on education/etc. by voting on the democrats en masse, are they. (It's possible that the democrats will win, but let's not kid ourselves, the republicans won't really suffer any longterm effects because of the war; they'll probably end up close second, *if* they lose the next election).
"As for art, that's culture and for the most part society does benefit from it"
For the most part, society benefits from academic research too. The question was, on what it is *best* spend (dixit yourself). In that respect, one could quite reasonably argument that spend on works of art (and certainly maintaining statues and the like) are less 'good' spend then if that money would be spend on medical research, for instance. After all, what is more important; to save people from diseases, or to pollish and preserve some ego-flattering statue of a general or president (or some abstract concept embodied in bronze)...right?
"And as I said yesterday (OMG I love repeating myself...) NOT EVERYTHING IS BLACK AND WHITE."
I wasn't here yesterday, but I'm glad to see you've of the same opinion. This means, however, that indeed many things deserve to be funded..including academic research. which leads back to what I said earlier: one can not really measure the importance of academic work, certainly not in front. Things may seem worthless, but in reality, we wouldn't know. Even the experts won't agree, let alone that politicians could make the distinction - exept maybe when it's completely obviously nonsensical or non-scientific... but those projects usually don't gather much support anyway. And, what's more, one could even make a case state-sponsored research should actually concentrate on academic topics...because those won't be dealt with by private companies, while many of those that are 'helpful' to people also promise to be profitable, and thus the private sector will already research that.
"So you have to balance what a few want with what many need."
But what argument are you going to use for that? As we have seen, strictly speaking, if one values life and health for all people as the most important thing (which is often claimed), than what is the balance? If ONE life can be saved by money spend on medical research instead of paying to create or clean statues of pigeonshit...isn't that more important?
The truth is - and this is impopular to say out loud - that people are only moderately interested in helping other people. Of course it varies from indivdual to individual, but as a whole, humans do not really prioritise everything towards the goal of helping others. In fact, compared to most EU-countries, the USA does even a far worse job in that regard - but still the majority doesn't really see anything wrong with this version of the 'american dream'. Mostly, the theory of: "if you want to achieve something, you can get it, and those who don't, have only to blame themselves" is applied. While it's politically correct to claim the oposite, reality is, no-one (not even the state) *really* puts that claim into practise. The reason wh
The problem I have with this kind of reasoning is, that it's applicable to almost everything, and yet it denies the fact that there is no society on the planetthat does not diversify its funding.
For instance, with the same token one can say:
"Schools [as in for kids], uni, hospitals, and the like are ALREADY underfunded TODAY. Why waste money on space-exploration when the billions spend up there could be used to help people down here?"
"Schools [as in for kids], uni, hospitals, and the like are ALREADY underfunded TODAY. Why waste money on creating/restoring/maintaining buildings, statues and art, when the millions spend on that could be used to help people?"
"Schools [as in for kids], uni, hospitals, and the like are ALREADY underfunded TODAY. Why waste money on military equipment and wars when the billions spend up there could be used to help people here?"
All those arguments are based on the same reasoning, but it's also based on emotional-appeal. It's nice in theory, but it just doesn't work that way - in fact, I don't think human nature is inclined to see things that black and white. I mean, sure, we *all* think that saving and helping people is the most important...yet how many of us offer up our comfort for more directly helping people in third and forth world-countries? Buying a less expensive car would have freed money to help maybe 10 families directly - but who does that, EVEN when they will agree that people are more important than a bigger car.
With the price of a computer and an internet connection, you could probably help the poorest people in another, or even your own, country. But aparently, you didn't. It's easy to claim the state should not spend money on other things, because people are more important than academic research, space-exploration, etc. - but we don't behave like it neither.
So, yes, if money spend elsewhere were to be used on education, medical research, etc., it could well be that society would help more people. However, this argument leaves no room for anything else, if the premise is accepted. I however, think that, while helping people is important, other things have some importance too, and thus funding should also reflect that and not flow to only a few area's where everyone agrees on is directly helping people. If people use the emo-appeal of 'everything to help the people' it should be reflected in their personal life too, IMHO, but I rarely see that, which indicates that that argument is not actually accepted in a pragmatic sense.
"For the benefit of society we should be funding research that can best serve society."
That would imply that one would know in front what research can best serve society.
This is rather contentious and doubtful; first of all, it is rather arbitrary as to define what is 'best' for society, and furthermore, it's impossible to know what may come from that research in terms of future possibilities - or while not useful themselves, may lead to advances (or in combination with other research) that would otherwise have been lost. The theorethical research of the laser, for instance, was made ages before anything useful could be done with it - but still it was necessary to have our practical applications today. I imagine, however, that in the early days where the research was academical, people would have considered the research worthless too. Much like the CERN is considered by some to be a complete waste of time and money which doesn't help society.
I've always thought it to be best (also for society;-) to have a mixed bag of research/sponsoring. To me, the more variation you have in research (and fields), the more chance you have of cross-fertilisation between those fields and research, and THAT is best for society. If all things were just for commercial and profit gain, or all things were just academic research, I think society as a whole would be worse off.
But then again, as I said, the 'best' part is rather arbitrary and next to impossible to prove one way or another. (Not that I do not agree that sometimes, money IS being wasted on useless research (be it commercial or academic), but my viewpoint on when it's wasted will often differ with that of someone else).
Does anyone, after reading TFA (I know, not that common on slashdot) that we NEED governmental subsidized research? I mean, I know there are those who think the private sector and the free market is the solution to everything (like a financial turingmachine that is universal), but NO private industry wanting to make a profit out of it would ever finance such academic research and work.
This is mainly knowdledge for the sake of knowledge, and companies aren't really interested in that. They would even only *consider* sponsoring such things if a case for commercial applicability can be made.
Take away the state(funding), and academic research is going to suffer big time.
But than again, to those who only see value in earning a profit, this kind of research is pretty useless anyway.
While I agree with you on every point, they give it another spin. For instance:
"-XO operating system interface was designed from the ground up for this purpose. Classmate uses Windows XP Embedded."
They are effectively promoting their PC as a 'real' one (vs.a plaything of the XO) because it can run XP, while the XO doesn't.
The XO is clearly a more interesting concept, though. I wish they would mass-market it in the west too. I wouldn't mind paying $200 for it, even if just to see how it ticks.
"No, there is nothing to be gained here, financial, material, or moral. That's my point. None of this matters. That's not cynicism, that's practicality.If you think that abiding by Chinese laws makes Google "evil," then you're going to have a very, very, very hard time feeling good about any company."
I don't really see how that can be true, in a logical sense. While "evil" is subjective, once you agree that an action or a law is evil, then abiding by that law is evil too. If a law in some country would force every company to use childlabour, and you deem childlabour to be wrong (evil), then abiding by that law eans that you are doing an evil thing.
In the case of the chinese; if they ask for the IP-adres of a political activist so that they can put them in prison and you deem that to be evil, then abiding by that law (which google must do, if they want to stay in business there) is evil too.
Whether one gains something (financial or otherwise) isn't really the point when it comes to the morality of abiding by unethical laws.
You could be right, of course, that google may still be one of the 'better' companies out there, but the point is, their slogan is 'do NO evil'. If they don't want to be hypocritical, they either adhere to that (including forgoing profits if it means doing more evil), or they should change their slogan. (a bit in the line of: "we don't try to do evil, but will be doing it if profits are big enough").
One *can not* claim to be an upright and ethical person (or company) and willfully abide to laws which one deems to be unethical - not even Google.
"All day long I was trying to find another analogy that would help you understand my point."
Wow. Well...I wouldn't lay awake at night because of it; it's only slashdot, after all.;-)
(Though I understand a discussion can be interesting enough to ponder about it, even outside slashdot-context)
"I was forced to rethink my position and will concede that you are correct."
You have NO idea how rare this is on slashdot!;-p
Thus, I'm pleasantly surprised, I must say. Usually, even with interesting debates (and not all of them are on a typical slashdot-session), mostly the participants who have different ideas/opinions about a subject never change there mind, whatever arguments are given. Most of the time, I think they're just to stubborn to acknowledge the lack of logic in their reasoning...but they could be thinking the same of me;-).
I must admit I've seldom changed my mind too, on certain subjects - maybe two or three times, during all those times on slashdot. It's not that I don't consider myself open-minded, but I'm a staunch supporter of using logic and rational arguments (though I can be pretty sarcastic too, which doesn't help, sometimes) - and I only defend conclusions which make most sense, in a logical way (well, that's my take on it). sometimes, it's a question of premises, though. One can use logic all one wants, but, say, if someone is of the opinion copyrights are there to provide a maximum of wealth to a small subgroup of society, then he might have a completely logical reasoning - but I just don't accept his premise.
Speaking of which: while we had a debate about copyright, and seem to have come to a reasonable agreement on the terms/timeperiods, I must say I'm even more of a 'revisionist' when it comes to patents. There, I believe that patents should be *completely* abolished in some fields of endeavour, and severely revised and limited in other areas.
Others have a different opinion of how logical the patentsystem is. (see links again - or even the myriads of posts on the subject on slasdot)
Common sense?
Well, I don't need to give any comments on that, I suppose. What is common sense for one person is bullocks for another. For instance, I'm quite sure you think you're only talking common sense, while I think you're completely wrong (and vice versa).
"The words of the founding fathers?"
Well, if it *would* be based on that, then it should only be defended if it 'promotes science and the useful arts' - I'm still waiting on any researchpapers that proves this is the case. Because, you know, your 'own experiences' and 'common sense' isn't really a measurement for determining if it's really beneficial to society at large or not (in the sense of creating more innovative works). It's *assumed*, yes. Just as you assume your assertion is true, but without delivering any proof, nor even a scientifically based indication that it is true.
"I said 20 years at most, not "only after 20 years."
OK...so, now that that is cleared up, I'll repeat my question: you base that number on, what, again? Does history show it's after 10 years? Does logic indicate 15 years? Does common sense tells us it's 8 years? Didn't the founding fathers say the term for copyright to be 14 years, with an additional 14 years (which would make for more then 20 years, actually)?
Or could it simply be, whatever number of years you take, it's arbitrary, and not the result of logic, history or common sense? Just as the assertion that it 'needs protection' is completely arbitrary?
Instead of 'common sense' or your personal anecdotes, it would be more convincing if you could show me a scientific paper indicating that what you say has the validity you seem to claim it has. Can you provide such a link?
Because, you know, you might have missed it, but I gave you a whole list of references of researchpapers that indicate that, at least in some fields and for some IP-laws, we don't need the protection *at all*. I therefor doubt that your general remark that 'we need it', can be accepted at face value.
"Sarcasm requires intelligence, and by demonstrating a second grade reading level, you're only making yourself sound stupid."
The fact you realised I was sarcastic, already negates most of the rest of your sentence, since you then must realise that I only *sound* stupid. I'm not sure if *you* only *sound* stupid, but I'll wait with my conclusion on that untill I've read some more posts of you.;-)
But, maybe you are the exeption to the rule (and I did say I was somewhat generalising in that statement).
"My position is that the person challenging the law needs to provide the evidence -- the reason being, the laws already exist (whether the "natural" state is no IP law or whatever, the laws are here). If you want to change, you need to show why change would better benefit society as a whole than the current system."
Two remarks:
1)If so, then they needed to show why the change would better benefit society as a whole when they wanted it to change the law into supporting IP-rights. They never did. Are you asking for more proof to revert it back to the way it was, then for it to have changed to the current condition of IP-laws in the first place? Why? The studies thusfar, have already given more indications that it isn't beneficial (at least in some domains) then whatever 'proof' was given in support of implementing IP-laws (which was next to none, only an asumption). If no proof was good enough to change the situation, the limited proof we already have should be more then sufficient to revert it back.
2)The fact remains, that it is clearly indicated that the laws are there 'to promote science and the useful arts'...that is *the condition* for it; thus, it should be proven it IS doing exactly that, and not for us to prove it isn't.
If you get the right to ask 2000 dollar for a puppet, but with the condition that you make 10 puppets a day, is it for me to disprove that you made ten a day, or for you to prove you did make 10 a day? I would claim you only keep the right as long as you can show that you fulfill your obligation.
"It's not like our legal system is set up so that a law is only valid so long as it is shown to be good"
I'm not getting this reasoning. If it doesn't need to be shown it is good, then why do I need to demonstrate no patents is a good thing? And if it IS to be shown that a law is good, why didn't it need to be shown when the law changed to include IP-laws? However you turn it, it seems to me a double standard is being used.
"...we change laws when something better needs to be done."
And the use of IP-laws has been proven by studies (just like you ask of me now) that it was better then the situation before there were any, right? clearly, your theory is not being followed, so why should it suddenly be emperative for a change? One can not arbitrary decide when proof is needed for a change, and when not. If your position is, that it needs to be proven before a change can happen, that should count for both ways. Besides, numerous laws have been and are being changed, and I doubt there is evidence provided for all those changes.
Mind you, I'm all for scientific proof before a law is changed, but the law was changed to incorporate IP-laws, so the first burden is to proof that THAT is beneficial.
Certainly you must see the logic of that? One can't just say: but the laws are like that *now*, so *now* you need proof - that's completely arbitrary. Seen the fact that laws still change without scientific proof provided, one could abolish IP-rights, and then claim the same thing: "but since it is now law, you have to prove that IP-rights are better". The principle of proof is valid for every change, or for no change, you can't pick when it is needed and when not; that's intellectually dishonest.
"I will take a look at your references, maybe I will be convinced -- although the first one I looked at, the Groklaw cite, simply pointed to the front page of Groklaw,"
I would concentrate on the references in appendix A. They contain summaries, but I'm sure most of them can be found online (try google with the titles provided). Appendix B is more a list of sites, some of which link to studies, but a lot also to more generic sites which had information relevant to the EU directive, but not always to scien
"But shouldn't the burden of proving whether or not the IP laws are beneficial to society as a whole be on those who want to get rid of them?"
Actually, no. The *original* status was: no IP-rights, so it would have to be those that favour the IP-laws that should demonstrate that it *is* beneficial. The main reason the IP-laws came through, is because it was *assumed* that they would be beneficial for the promotion of science and the useful arts. I didn't see any evidence of that neither, let alone that studies were done to evaluate the optimal level of IP-protection to get a maximum of new works and inventions.
It's a bit unfair to demand proof of the beneficiality (if that is a word) of IP rights, when that proof was never asked for of those who wanted it to get instated. Having the IP-rights isn't the normal state: we only have those for the last 200 years of human history, so one can easily argument the question should be reversed: shouldn't those who want to keep the IP-laws demonstrate that it IS beneficial, since *that was the argumentation used to allow them in the first place*?
"But shouldn't the burden of proving whether or not the IP laws are beneficial to society as a whole be on those who want to get rid of them? Where is the evidence (not anecdotal, real studies) sowing that the current copyright laws and current patent law stifle creativity?"
"I've asked this before here, and every time I just get a bunch of replies stating that I am stupid, or a stoolie for the IP lobby, or that I can't see what is so blatantly obvious in front of my face."
Poor you!
Ah, well, that's slashdot for you!
"As you can probably tell, I don't believe that IP laws stifle creativity and progress for society as a whole."
You don't say?;-)
The problem I have with your kind of type (well, I'm generalising now; you could be the exeption), is that they are never satisfied and always find something to dispute or to ignore, when they *are* confronted with real studies. They never deliver *any* scientific study (to prove otherwise) of their own, but every study that is presented, is deemed incorrect or unvalid or somehow lacking - as if they are all statistical experts who've analysed all those researchpapers. All of those people complaining they never get pointed to real data (with one exeption) either ignored those references/papers, or found it 'not convincing'. Well, duh. Even with a hundred more papers made by scientists, they still wouldn't be convinced - because they don't want to be convinced, and they will not be convinced by data that contradicts their own idea about it.
Whether one is 'convinced' or not, all indications are, that at least in some fields, it IS doing more harm than that it is beneficial (in terms of more creativity and innovation). I'm still waiting to see *one* counter-indication in a true scientific paper that refutes those conclusions.
The clathrate gun hypothesis states that as sea temperatures rise the sudden release of methane from methane clathrate compounds buried in the seabeds will cause a drastic alteration of the ocean enviornment and the atmosphere of earth, as recent analysis concerning the Permian extinction event indicates may have happened in the past.
The Permian-Triassic extinction event, labeled "End P" here, is the most significant extinction event in this plot for marine genera which produce large numbers of fossils.Contents
Mechanism Methane clathrate, also called methane hydrate, is a form of water ice that contains a large amount of methane within its crystal structure. Extremely large deposits of methane clathrate have been found under sediments on the ocean floors of the Earth. The sudden release of large amounts of natural gas from methane clathrate deposits in a runaway greenhouse effect could be a cause of past and future climate changes. The release of this trapped methane is a potential major outcome of a rise in temperature; it is thought that this might increase the global temperature by an additional 5 in itself, as methane is much more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (despite its atmospheric lifetime of around 12 years, it has a global warming potential of 62 over 20 years and 23 over 100 years). The theory also predicts this will greatly affect available oxygen content of the atmosphere.
Recent findings In 2002, a BBC2 'Horizon' documentary, 'The Day the Earth Nearly Died,' summarized some recent findings and speculation concerning the Permian extinction event. Paul Wignall examined Permian strata in Greenland, where the rock layers devoid of marine life are tens of meters thick. With such an expanded scale, he could judge the timing of deposition more accurately and ascertained that the entire extinction lasted merely 80,000 years and showed three distinctive phases in the plant and animal fossils they contained. The extinction appeared to kill land and marine life selectively at different times. Two periods of extinctions of terrestrial life were separated by a brief, sharp, almost total extinction of marine life. Such a process seemed too long, however, to be accounted for by a meteorite strike. His best clue was the carbon isotope balance in the rock, which showed an increase in carbon-12 over time. The standard explanation for such a spike - rotting vegetation - seemed insufficient.
Geologist Gerry Dickens suggested that the increased carbon-12 could have been rapidly released by up-swellings of frozen methane hydrate from the seabed. Experiments to assess how large a rise in deep sea temperature would be required to sublimate solid methane hydrate suggested that a rise of 5C (10 F) would be sufficient.
"but I can see that if someone created a work, and released it hoping to make lots of money, or at least enough to support his family, then died a year later, I can see allowing his estate to hold the copyright for a short term."
I actually disagree with that, frankly. I know this sort of argument has great emotional appeal, but it just isn't a rational reason to give an author rights after he died.
You yourself quoted the 'for the promotion of science and useful arts' part. Did you see anywhere mentionned "to provide income for his family, even after death"? Copyright is a monopoly of/by the state, and that monopoly wasn't meant to provide social and financial security for surviving dependants.
If I'm busy with building a roof for someone, and I die a year later, does my family get paid untill 70 years after my death? Nope. I get paid for the job I did at the time, and that's it. So why doesn't the state grant me a monopoly that ensures my family gets money after I'm dead, if that financial security is a reason for it to be granted?
No, however you look at it (as long as it is rationally), copyright-extension beyond death doesn't make sense, if it's about promotion of science and art. And if it is about providing financial security after death, then why should only authors/inventors be granted a monopoly for years after they're dead? I don't think any state has ever argumented such a thing; most will say that, if you want to provide that kind of security to your family, you should sign up to a life-insurance policy.
Another, far more simpler way to deal with it, would be for the author to ask for a bigger financial bonus from his publisher (directly payed) when the book is finished (and less or none of the relative % of sales). That way, he gets payed for his work, just as everyone else gets payed for their work. (= once, for the work delivered, and not years and years after he made that work, even untill after death). In that case, just like my family can't complain they don't get continiously paid after my death for a job I once did, they couldn't or shouldn't either.
I personally would go for a maximum period of life of the author or 40 years, whatever comes first. That way, all works from authors who died would automatically become public domain, and otherwise (important for 'legal persons' for instance) it would come in the public domain 40 years after its creation.
" But what I was getting at more than that was not that crimes are viewed with varying degrees of reprehensibleness (is that a word?)"
I wouldn't know, but it sounds impressive!;-)
"but that some justify their copyright infringement as being acceptable, simply because it isn't theft."
I don't know about that. Everytime that there is this kind of FA on slashdot almost all posts I see that go 'copyright-infringement is not theft' it is almost always as a response topost that claim copyright-infringement is theft. Take this FA-threads, for instance...do you see someone claim that he has the right to download/upload copyrighted stuff *because it's not theft*? I didn't encounter a post like that yet. But there are many (including mine) who argue about the topic, because other slashdotters claim it equals theft.
You might have 'some', but I doubt it has ever been a major point in defending why copyrights should be breached and abolished. But of course, our level of reprehensability (isn't that a word?) may differ. I couldn't care less if there is mass infringement of some forms of IP, on the contrary (at least, if it's not for commercial gain, but personal use). I would rather see a flat internettax which gives you the right to download/upload works for personal use, than a system like we have now. My basuis for it is not that theft is worse, of course (makes little sense), but because I think most of our IP laws are inherently and hopelessly borked. Abolishement of some types of IP in some fields are necessary (IMHO), and the rest has need of a serious revision.
"However, take my speeding example. More people speed, and do so consistently, than have ever infringed copyright. Yet we shouldn't just get rid of speed limits, or even raise them considerably higher."
I disagree. If the speedlimits are systematically broken on a massive scale, there is reason to get rid of them or to raise them. The problem here is, that the majority of the people also don't want more deaths on the roads, and thus most people will agree to speedlimits even though they speed themselves now and then - there isn't really an alternative to it. I doubt, however, that this would be true for copyright-infringement (for personal use); most people wouldn't mind getting rid of those laws, certainly not if other alternatives are possible to support the artists (like the flat fee internettax).
As for your argument that download and upload is not the same thing: point taken (at least, in some countries). but then again, in some countries even the upload isn't considered copyright-infringement. And in some even the download is. My point rather was; even if download would be infringement everywhere, and all people are conscient that they are downloading copyrighted material, would the downloading stop/reduces considerably? I don't think so. Contrary to your claim, I suspect most already know it's not strictly koosher what they're doing with their P2P progs...they just don't care. It's too damn convenient, and it's in human nature. It's a bit like trying to forbid gambling; it just won't work, nomatter how severe the laws get.
"That being said, I think copyright terms ought to be shortened. The minimum now is 70 years, assuming the creator dies the moment he obtains a copyright. That is ridiculous."
Yeah, I never understood that neither, if the purpose of it is to promote new works. Say, for instance, the timeperiod is 40 years...that would mean, an author who creatd a book at 20, can live of it untill he's 60. Now, if, by that time, he still hasn't made another work, then it isn't really promoting much, is it? and if he did create new works, then there is no problem, because he still can have a reasonable living.
The most crazy part is, that now it's 70 years *AFTER* the *death* of the author. I mean, what, we're stimulating his creativity beyond the grave? We're expecting a dead corpse to create new works?
"One could say that even though Copyright Infringement can be considered theft, they have a more appropriate charge of "copyright infringment.""
Why would it be more appropriate, if it's exactly the same?
The fact that courts use different names is because they are considered different crimes. The reason why they are considered thus, is because they *do* differ.
Now, ofcourse, "one" could say it's theft - the RIAA, for instance, or even the prosecuter. But then they aren't using the terminology and the interpretation of the laws and the courts - nay, not even of the dictionary.
IF the premise is, that to speak of 'theft' something must actually have been stolen (e.g. the original owner *has* been deprived of something), then copyright-infringement is not theft.
Another interpretation - as I said in my other post - might come to the conclusion it *is* theft... but for me (and the law/courts/most dictionaries and people), that condition is a sine qua non to speak of 'theft'. If *you* do not see that as a prerequisite for it to be considered theft, then it might well be, that, within your own interpretation, you can deduce it is theft.
Well, it's true I was trying to be lightharted, but I'll try to give a more in-dept answer to your post:
The basic mistake is your premise that desire does not imply a right. In fact, rights are *always* derived from desires. Only; some make it into law, and others don't. This has mostly to do with how strong the desire is, and (in a democracy) how many people have that desire.
I think this is a fact that can't really be denied. For instance, say the majority of the populace desires strongly enough that all IP-rights would be abolished, and they elect a party in power that does exactly just that. Where is your right, then? Rights are just legally binding concepts that society thinks is desirable. So, while not every desire of every individual automatically makes it to a right (you were right in that - forgive the pun), it still is true that it are the underlying desires that make a right, ultimately. If there would be a desire to 'consume' software or media one cannot afford by other means, it is quite possiblerights are developed that may grant you that (as in the case of the french parliament, which passed a law that allowed the download of content for personal use, by creating a flat tax on the internetconnections to compensate the artists).
In short, I would claim desires and rights are very strongly linked.
"I just want to make sure I understand your argument. It shouldn't be considered theft, if the thief was not going to purchase it anyway. hmmm.. sounds flawed."
hmmm...strange. Your the second one that completely misses the point. The reasoning is not about wanting to pay something or not, the reasoning is, that one must prove something has actually been stolen, before you can accuse someone of theft.
In your funny analogy, the premise is, that he *already* has stolen the product, but didn't want to pay for it. Thus, the theft lies in the fact, that he took something away, and therefor it can not be defended by saying he didn't want to pay for it. You can not, however, claim the theft lies in the fact that he 'took away revenue', if it's not proven that there was any revenue taken away by his copying of it - simply because it is *not* a fact.
In a non-digital context, it would be akin to judge a person as a shoplifter, even when the shop has no basis for it's allegation that anything was stolen - but that he 'might' have stolen something, because there's a self-made copy of a product they sell at his home.
Can that shop make a case for 'theft'? I don't think so. At most they can try to get him for copyright-infringement (if they have a copyright on that product). It clearly shows that 'theft' and 'copyright-infringement' are two seperate issues.
"So is shoplifting not theft because the shoplifter would not have purchased the item anyway?"
I thougt I made the reasoning clear, but aparently I didn't.
If you shoplift, you *take away the product*; therefor, you deprive the owner of his product.
With copyright-infringement, you don't deprive the owner of his product, you take a *copy* of it. You ALSO do not deprive him of revenue, if that revenue wouldn't have happened anyway.
So, basically, one has no case because the owner wasn't deprived of anything. In your shoplifting example, the owner is clearly deprived of something, namely his product.
"Besided who said that murder can't be defined as "theft of life"?"
One can define whatever one wants to define. I can define 'speech' as 'censorship' and vice versa, but in normal conversations, to have any succes in having a sensible discussion, we normally don't give interpretations as we see fit.
Now, as I already said (subjective semantic interpretation) one can call murder 'theft of life', but everyone (at least, most normal people) understand quite well that it isn't *really* a case of theft. And certainly we can all agree that the law and the courts don't deal with it as a case of theft. Neither do they with copyright-infringement, so the whole "why can't I call something whatever I want" is rather irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and only serves to obfuscate proper logical reasoning in regard to the matter.
To make things even more clear: if your interpretation of theft is such, that an action (of copying) you feel is improper, even when nothing has been taken away from the owner, constitutes theft, then I gladly concede the point. I, however (and I think most courts and laws) do not follow you in that interpretation.
Slashdot Mirror
to baldly go where no man has gone before!
"We've all read some of the overlong slashdot replies/nerd emails that go to great lengths and painstaking detail, dismantling every aspect of the parent poster's point. Usually these posts include specific references to higher authority - textbooks, articles, past examples and other random websites."
I do not know what you mean. I've never seen anything like the things you describe, and even a more in-depth analysis of your claims show no signs that the point you make has any validity. Painstanking detail? Dismantling every aspect of a post? I would like to refer you to the researchpaper "On the origin of debating posts on slashdot" by Anonymous Coward, where it is clearly proven that what you describe has never been substantiated, nay, not even an example could be found to demonstrate...
oh...wait...
"That story is the _best_ argument FOR public funding."
That's what I said.
"Wolfram only announces this (rather small) price to get publicity for his NKS bullshit, and sell more books.
So in fact, the whole procedure will actually create a net loss in knowledge and intelligence (people that will work on it get dumber, and dont create useful knowledge in the meantime)."
Seen the quality of your counter-arguments, you'd better hope everyone reading your post is retarded.
"Um, I actually agree with your comment about why fund wars."
I actually do too. But that was just to show how some things may be more 'obvious to agree on' than others. The principle remains the same though; one could argument that military strength is necessary to safekeep the country. And wars...well, *nobody* will say they are a proponent of war - but yet, people accept the state spending billions and billions on the Iraqi war. And one can't really say it's a fluke, or people are all that oposed to it, because evry 10-20 years, the USA is involved in *some* war, whatever the political party is in power. (And europe didn't do much better during most of its history, exept for the last 50 years).
While there is protest going on, one can not claim it's of primordial importance to most people, apparently. Bush was voted in office a second time, after all. And the populace isn't really going to punish the republicans for beginning a war instead of spending it on education/etc. by voting on the democrats en masse, are they. (It's possible that the democrats will win, but let's not kid ourselves, the republicans won't really suffer any longterm effects because of the war; they'll probably end up close second, *if* they lose the next election).
"As for art, that's culture and for the most part society does benefit from it"
For the most part, society benefits from academic research too. The question was, on what it is *best* spend (dixit yourself). In that respect, one could quite reasonably argument that spend on works of art (and certainly maintaining statues and the like) are less 'good' spend then if that money would be spend on medical research, for instance. After all, what is more important; to save people from diseases, or to pollish and preserve some ego-flattering statue of a general or president (or some abstract concept embodied in bronze)...right?
"And as I said yesterday (OMG I love repeating myself...) NOT EVERYTHING IS BLACK AND WHITE."
I wasn't here yesterday, but I'm glad to see you've of the same opinion. This means, however, that indeed many things deserve to be funded..including academic research. which leads back to what I said earlier: one can not really measure the importance of academic work, certainly not in front. Things may seem worthless, but in reality, we wouldn't know. Even the experts won't agree, let alone that politicians could make the distinction - exept maybe when it's completely obviously nonsensical or non-scientific... but those projects usually don't gather much support anyway. And, what's more, one could even make a case state-sponsored research should actually concentrate on academic topics...because those won't be dealt with by private companies, while many of those that are 'helpful' to people also promise to be profitable, and thus the private sector will already research that.
"So you have to balance what a few want with what many need."
But what argument are you going to use for that? As we have seen, strictly speaking, if one values life and health for all people as the most important thing (which is often claimed), than what is the balance? If ONE life can be saved by money spend on medical research instead of paying to create or clean statues of pigeonshit...isn't that more important?
The truth is - and this is impopular to say out loud - that people are only moderately interested in helping other people. Of course it varies from indivdual to individual, but as a whole, humans do not really prioritise everything towards the goal of helping others. In fact, compared to most EU-countries, the USA does even a far worse job in that regard - but still the majority doesn't really see anything wrong with this version of the 'american dream'. Mostly, the theory of: "if you want to achieve something, you can get it, and those who don't, have only to blame themselves" is applied. While it's politically correct to claim the oposite, reality is, no-one (not even the state) *really* puts that claim into practise. The reason wh
The problem I have with this kind of reasoning is, that it's applicable to almost everything, and yet it denies the fact that there is no society on the planetthat does not diversify its funding.
For instance, with the same token one can say:
"Schools [as in for kids], uni, hospitals, and the like are ALREADY underfunded TODAY. Why waste money on space-exploration when the billions spend up there could be used to help people down here?"
"Schools [as in for kids], uni, hospitals, and the like are ALREADY underfunded TODAY. Why waste money on creating/restoring/maintaining buildings, statues and art, when the millions spend on that could be used to help people?"
"Schools [as in for kids], uni, hospitals, and the like are ALREADY underfunded TODAY. Why waste money on military equipment and wars when the billions spend up there could be used to help people here?"
All those arguments are based on the same reasoning, but it's also based on emotional-appeal. It's nice in theory, but it just doesn't work that way - in fact, I don't think human nature is inclined to see things that black and white. I mean, sure, we *all* think that saving and helping people is the most important...yet how many of us offer up our comfort for more directly helping people in third and forth world-countries? Buying a less expensive car would have freed money to help maybe 10 families directly - but who does that, EVEN when they will agree that people are more important than a bigger car.
With the price of a computer and an internet connection, you could probably help the poorest people in another, or even your own, country. But aparently, you didn't. It's easy to claim the state should not spend money on other things, because people are more important than academic research, space-exploration, etc. - but we don't behave like it neither.
So, yes, if money spend elsewhere were to be used on education, medical research, etc., it could well be that society would help more people. However, this argument leaves no room for anything else, if the premise is accepted. I however, think that, while helping people is important, other things have some importance too, and thus funding should also reflect that and not flow to only a few area's where everyone agrees on is directly helping people. If people use the emo-appeal of 'everything to help the people' it should be reflected in their personal life too, IMHO, but I rarely see that, which indicates that that argument is not actually accepted in a pragmatic sense.
"For the benefit of society we should be funding research that can best serve society."
;-) to have a mixed bag of research/sponsoring. To me, the more variation you have in research (and fields), the more chance you have of cross-fertilisation between those fields and research, and THAT is best for society. If all things were just for commercial and profit gain, or all things were just academic research, I think society as a whole would be worse off.
That would imply that one would know in front what research can best serve society.
This is rather contentious and doubtful; first of all, it is rather arbitrary as to define what is 'best' for society, and furthermore, it's impossible to know what may come from that research in terms of future possibilities - or while not useful themselves, may lead to advances (or in combination with other research) that would otherwise have been lost. The theorethical research of the laser, for instance, was made ages before anything useful could be done with it - but still it was necessary to have our practical applications today. I imagine, however, that in the early days where the research was academical, people would have considered the research worthless too. Much like the CERN is considered by some to be a complete waste of time and money which doesn't help society.
I've always thought it to be best (also for society
But then again, as I said, the 'best' part is rather arbitrary and next to impossible to prove one way or another. (Not that I do not agree that sometimes, money IS being wasted on useless research (be it commercial or academic), but my viewpoint on when it's wasted will often differ with that of someone else).
Does anyone, after reading TFA (I know, not that common on slashdot) that we NEED governmental subsidized research? I mean, I know there are those who think the private sector and the free market is the solution to everything (like a financial turingmachine that is universal), but NO private industry wanting to make a profit out of it would ever finance such academic research and work.
This is mainly knowdledge for the sake of knowledge, and companies aren't really interested in that. They would even only *consider* sponsoring such things if a case for commercial applicability can be made.
Take away the state(funding), and academic research is going to suffer big time.
But than again, to those who only see value in earning a profit, this kind of research is pretty useless anyway.
Do you think the 'funny' moderation you got is to the point? Or would you rather have 'insightful'?
While I agree with you on every point, they give it another spin. For instance:
"-XO operating system interface was designed from the ground up for this purpose. Classmate uses Windows XP Embedded."
They are effectively promoting their PC as a 'real' one (vs.a plaything of the XO) because it can run XP, while the XO doesn't.
The XO is clearly a more interesting concept, though. I wish they would mass-market it in the west too. I wouldn't mind paying $200 for it, even if just to see how it ticks.
"AlgarabÃa to have a PC in its hands, some for the first time, dejà won the boys, who did not hope to ignite his mà quinas"
;-)
That sounds fishy!
Wait how enthusiastic they will be when they get India-made crappy pda-like devices for $10 with DNF included!
"and the ability to *create* and edit bugs via email."
;-)
Is that *really* such a good idea, I wonder?
"No, there is nothing to be gained here, financial, material, or moral. That's my point. None of this matters. That's not cynicism, that's practicality.If you think that abiding by Chinese laws makes Google "evil," then you're going to have a very, very, very hard time feeling good about any company."
I don't really see how that can be true, in a logical sense. While "evil" is subjective, once you agree that an action or a law is evil, then abiding by that law is evil too. If a law in some country would force every company to use childlabour, and you deem childlabour to be wrong (evil), then abiding by that law eans that you are doing an evil thing.
In the case of the chinese; if they ask for the IP-adres of a political activist so that they can put them in prison and you deem that to be evil, then abiding by that law (which google must do, if they want to stay in business there) is evil too.
Whether one gains something (financial or otherwise) isn't really the point when it comes to the morality of abiding by unethical laws.
You could be right, of course, that google may still be one of the 'better' companies out there, but the point is, their slogan is 'do NO evil'. If they don't want to be hypocritical, they either adhere to that (including forgoing profits if it means doing more evil), or they should change their slogan. (a bit in the line of: "we don't try to do evil, but will be doing it if profits are big enough").
One *can not* claim to be an upright and ethical person (or company) and willfully abide to laws which one deems to be unethical - not even Google.
"All day long I was trying to find another analogy that would help you understand my point."
;-)
;-p
;-).
Wow. Well...I wouldn't lay awake at night because of it; it's only slashdot, after all.
(Though I understand a discussion can be interesting enough to ponder about it, even outside slashdot-context)
"I was forced to rethink my position and will concede that you are correct."
You have NO idea how rare this is on slashdot!
Thus, I'm pleasantly surprised, I must say. Usually, even with interesting debates (and not all of them are on a typical slashdot-session), mostly the participants who have different ideas/opinions about a subject never change there mind, whatever arguments are given. Most of the time, I think they're just to stubborn to acknowledge the lack of logic in their reasoning...but they could be thinking the same of me
I must admit I've seldom changed my mind too, on certain subjects - maybe two or three times, during all those times on slashdot. It's not that I don't consider myself open-minded, but I'm a staunch supporter of using logic and rational arguments (though I can be pretty sarcastic too, which doesn't help, sometimes) - and I only defend conclusions which make most sense, in a logical way (well, that's my take on it). sometimes, it's a question of premises, though. One can use logic all one wants, but, say, if someone is of the opinion copyrights are there to provide a maximum of wealth to a small subgroup of society, then he might have a completely logical reasoning - but I just don't accept his premise.
Speaking of which: while we had a debate about copyright, and seem to have come to a reasonable agreement on the terms/timeperiods, I must say I'm even more of a 'revisionist' when it comes to patents. There, I believe that patents should be *completely* abolished in some fields of endeavour, and severely revised and limited in other areas.
"History? Logic? Common sense? The words of the founding fathers? My own experiences as what I would call in my more bold moments an "artist?""
r ee-world.html
;-)
History?
Others have a different interpretation of what we can/have learn(ed) from history, see the links at http://newsbyte.blogspot.com/2007/04/patents-vs-f
Logic?
Others have a different opinion of how logical the patentsystem is. (see links again - or even the myriads of posts on the subject on slasdot)
Common sense?
Well, I don't need to give any comments on that, I suppose. What is common sense for one person is bullocks for another. For instance, I'm quite sure you think you're only talking common sense, while I think you're completely wrong (and vice versa).
"The words of the founding fathers?"
Well, if it *would* be based on that, then it should only be defended if it 'promotes science and the useful arts' - I'm still waiting on any researchpapers that proves this is the case. Because, you know, your 'own experiences' and 'common sense' isn't really a measurement for determining if it's really beneficial to society at large or not (in the sense of creating more innovative works). It's *assumed*, yes. Just as you assume your assertion is true, but without delivering any proof, nor even a scientifically based indication that it is true.
"I said 20 years at most, not "only after 20 years."
OK...so, now that that is cleared up, I'll repeat my question: you base that number on, what, again? Does history show it's after 10 years? Does logic indicate 15 years? Does common sense tells us it's 8 years? Didn't the founding fathers say the term for copyright to be 14 years, with an additional 14 years (which would make for more then 20 years, actually)?
Or could it simply be, whatever number of years you take, it's arbitrary, and not the result of logic, history or common sense? Just as the assertion that it 'needs protection' is completely arbitrary?
Instead of 'common sense' or your personal anecdotes, it would be more convincing if you could show me a scientific paper indicating that what you say has the validity you seem to claim it has. Can you provide such a link?
Because, you know, you might have missed it, but I gave you a whole list of references of researchpapers that indicate that, at least in some fields and for some IP-laws, we don't need the protection *at all*. I therefor doubt that your general remark that 'we need it', can be accepted at face value.
"Sarcasm requires intelligence, and by demonstrating a second grade reading level, you're only making yourself sound stupid."
The fact you realised I was sarcastic, already negates most of the rest of your sentence, since you then must realise that I only *sound* stupid. I'm not sure if *you* only *sound* stupid, but I'll wait with my conclusion on that untill I've read some more posts of you.
"Where did I say that I wouldn't be satisfied?"
;-)
Well, they hardly say it about themselves.
But, maybe you are the exeption to the rule (and I did say I was somewhat generalising in that statement).
"My position is that the person challenging the law needs to provide the evidence -- the reason being, the laws already exist (whether the "natural" state is no IP law or whatever, the laws are here). If you want to change, you need to show why change would better benefit society as a whole than the current system."
Two remarks:
1)If so, then they needed to show why the change would better benefit society as a whole when they wanted it to change the law into supporting IP-rights. They never did. Are you asking for more proof to revert it back to the way it was, then for it to have changed to the current condition of IP-laws in the first place? Why? The studies thusfar, have already given more indications that it isn't beneficial (at least in some domains) then whatever 'proof' was given in support of implementing IP-laws (which was next to none, only an asumption). If no proof was good enough to change the situation, the limited proof we already have should be more then sufficient to revert it back.
2)The fact remains, that it is clearly indicated that the laws are there 'to promote science and the useful arts'...that is *the condition* for it; thus, it should be proven it IS doing exactly that, and not for us to prove it isn't.
If you get the right to ask 2000 dollar for a puppet, but with the condition that you make 10 puppets a day, is it for me to disprove that you made ten a day, or for you to prove you did make 10 a day? I would claim you only keep the right as long as you can show that you fulfill your obligation.
"It's not like our legal system is set up so that a law is only valid so long as it is shown to be good"
I'm not getting this reasoning. If it doesn't need to be shown it is good, then why do I need to demonstrate no patents is a good thing? And if it IS to be shown that a law is good, why didn't it need to be shown when the law changed to include IP-laws? However you turn it, it seems to me a double standard is being used.
"...we change laws when something better needs to be done."
And the use of IP-laws has been proven by studies (just like you ask of me now) that it was better then the situation before there were any, right? clearly, your theory is not being followed, so why should it suddenly be emperative for a change? One can not arbitrary decide when proof is needed for a change, and when not. If your position is, that it needs to be proven before a change can happen, that should count for both ways.
Besides, numerous laws have been and are being changed, and I doubt there is evidence provided for all those changes.
Mind you, I'm all for scientific proof before a law is changed, but the law was changed to incorporate IP-laws, so the first burden is to proof that THAT is beneficial.
Certainly you must see the logic of that? One can't just say: but the laws are like that *now*, so *now* you need proof - that's completely arbitrary. Seen the fact that laws still change without scientific proof provided, one could abolish IP-rights, and then claim the same thing: "but since it is now law, you have to prove that IP-rights are better". The principle of proof is valid for every change, or for no change, you can't pick when it is needed and when not; that's intellectually dishonest.
"I will take a look at your references, maybe I will be convinced -- although the first one I looked at, the Groklaw cite, simply pointed to the front page of Groklaw,"
I would concentrate on the references in appendix A. They contain summaries, but I'm sure most of them can be found online (try google with the titles provided). Appendix B is more a list of sites, some of which link to studies, but a lot also to more generic sites which had information relevant to the EU directive, but not always to scien
"But shouldn't the burden of proving whether or not the IP laws are beneficial to society as a whole be on those who want to get rid of them?"
e nts-manifesto.html
;-)
Actually, no. The *original* status was: no IP-rights, so it would have to be those that favour the IP-laws that should demonstrate that it *is* beneficial. The main reason the IP-laws came through, is because it was *assumed* that they would be beneficial for the promotion of science and the useful arts. I didn't see any evidence of that neither, let alone that studies were done to evaluate the optimal level of IP-protection to get a maximum of new works and inventions.
It's a bit unfair to demand proof of the beneficiality (if that is a word) of IP rights, when that proof was never asked for of those who wanted it to get instated. Having the IP-rights isn't the normal state: we only have those for the last 200 years of human history, so one can easily argument the question should be reversed: shouldn't those who want to keep the IP-laws demonstrate that it IS beneficial, since *that was the argumentation used to allow them in the first place*?
"But shouldn't the burden of proving whether or not the IP laws are beneficial to society as a whole be on those who want to get rid of them? Where is the evidence (not anecdotal, real studies) sowing that the current copyright laws and current patent law stifle creativity?"
For a list of references: see appendix A and B of http://newsbyte.blogspot.com/2005/07/software-pat
"I've asked this before here, and every time I just get a bunch of replies stating that I am stupid, or a stoolie for the IP lobby, or that I can't see what is so blatantly obvious in front of my face."
Poor you!
Ah, well, that's slashdot for you!
"As you can probably tell, I don't believe that IP laws stifle creativity and progress for society as a whole."
You don't say?
The problem I have with your kind of type (well, I'm generalising now; you could be the exeption), is that they are never satisfied and always find something to dispute or to ignore, when they *are* confronted with real studies. They never deliver *any* scientific study (to prove otherwise) of their own, but every study that is presented, is deemed incorrect or unvalid or somehow lacking - as if they are all statistical experts who've analysed all those researchpapers. All of those people complaining they never get pointed to real data (with one exeption) either ignored those references/papers, or found it 'not convincing'. Well, duh. Even with a hundred more papers made by scientists, they still wouldn't be convinced - because they don't want to be convinced, and they will not be convinced by data that contradicts their own idea about it.
Whether one is 'convinced' or not, all indications are, that at least in some fields, it IS doing more harm than that it is beneficial (in terms of more creativity and innovation). I'm still waiting to see *one* counter-indication in a true scientific paper that refutes those conclusions.
From the wikipedia:
The clathrate gun hypothesis states that as sea temperatures rise the sudden release of methane from methane clathrate compounds buried in the seabeds will cause a drastic alteration of the ocean enviornment and the atmosphere of earth, as recent analysis concerning the Permian extinction event indicates may have happened in the past.
The Permian-Triassic extinction event, labeled "End P" here, is the most significant extinction event in this plot for marine genera which produce large numbers of fossils.Contents
Mechanism
Methane clathrate, also called methane hydrate, is a form of water ice that contains a large amount of methane within its crystal structure. Extremely large deposits of methane clathrate have been found under sediments on the ocean floors of the Earth. The sudden release of large amounts of natural gas from methane clathrate deposits in a runaway greenhouse effect could be a cause of past and future climate changes. The release of this trapped methane is a potential major outcome of a rise in temperature; it is thought that this might increase the global temperature by an additional 5 in itself, as methane is much more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (despite its atmospheric lifetime of around 12 years, it has a global warming potential of 62 over 20 years and 23 over 100 years). The theory also predicts this will greatly affect available oxygen content of the atmosphere.
Recent findings
In 2002, a BBC2 'Horizon' documentary, 'The Day the Earth Nearly Died,' summarized some recent findings and speculation concerning the Permian extinction event. Paul Wignall examined Permian strata in Greenland, where the rock layers devoid of marine life are tens of meters thick. With such an expanded scale, he could judge the timing of deposition more accurately and ascertained that the entire extinction lasted merely 80,000 years and showed three distinctive phases in the plant and animal fossils they contained. The extinction appeared to kill land and marine life selectively at different times. Two periods of extinctions of terrestrial life were separated by a brief, sharp, almost total extinction of marine life. Such a process seemed too long, however, to be accounted for by a meteorite strike. His best clue was the carbon isotope balance in the rock, which showed an increase in carbon-12 over time. The standard explanation for such a spike - rotting vegetation - seemed insufficient.
Geologist Gerry Dickens suggested that the increased carbon-12 could have been rapidly released by up-swellings of frozen methane hydrate from the seabed. Experiments to assess how large a rise in deep sea temperature would be required to sublimate solid methane hydrate suggested that a rise of 5C (10 F) would be sufficient.
"but I can see that if someone created a work, and released it hoping to make lots of money, or at least enough to support his family, then died a year later, I can see allowing his estate to hold the copyright for a short term."
I actually disagree with that, frankly. I know this sort of argument has great emotional appeal, but it just isn't a rational reason to give an author rights after he died.
You yourself quoted the 'for the promotion of science and useful arts' part. Did you see anywhere mentionned "to provide income for his family, even after death"? Copyright is a monopoly of/by the state, and that monopoly wasn't meant to provide social and financial security for surviving dependants.
If I'm busy with building a roof for someone, and I die a year later, does my family get paid untill 70 years after my death? Nope. I get paid for the job I did at the time, and that's it. So why doesn't the state grant me a monopoly that ensures my family gets money after I'm dead, if that financial security is a reason for it to be granted?
No, however you look at it (as long as it is rationally), copyright-extension beyond death doesn't make sense, if it's about promotion of science and art. And if it is about providing financial security after death, then why should only authors/inventors be granted a monopoly for years after they're dead? I don't think any state has ever argumented such a thing; most will say that, if you want to provide that kind of security to your family, you should sign up to a life-insurance policy.
Another, far more simpler way to deal with it, would be for the author to ask for a bigger financial bonus from his publisher (directly payed) when the book is finished (and less or none of the relative % of sales). That way, he gets payed for his work, just as everyone else gets payed for their work. (= once, for the work delivered, and not years and years after he made that work, even untill after death). In that case, just like my family can't complain they don't get continiously paid after my death for a job I once did, they couldn't or shouldn't either.
I personally would go for a maximum period of life of the author or 40 years, whatever comes first. That way, all works from authors who died would automatically become public domain, and otherwise (important for 'legal persons' for instance) it would come in the public domain 40 years after its creation.
A well-reasoned post, I'm glad to notice! :-)
;-)
" But what I was getting at more than that was not that crimes are viewed with varying degrees of reprehensibleness (is that a word?)"
I wouldn't know, but it sounds impressive!
"but that some justify their copyright infringement as being acceptable, simply because it isn't theft."
I don't know about that. Everytime that there is this kind of FA on slashdot almost all posts I see that go 'copyright-infringement is not theft' it is almost always as a response topost that claim copyright-infringement is theft. Take this FA-threads, for instance...do you see someone claim that he has the right to download/upload copyrighted stuff *because it's not theft*? I didn't encounter a post like that yet. But there are many (including mine) who argue about the topic, because other slashdotters claim it equals theft.
You might have 'some', but I doubt it has ever been a major point in defending why copyrights should be breached and abolished. But of course, our level of reprehensability (isn't that a word?) may differ. I couldn't care less if there is mass infringement of some forms of IP, on the contrary (at least, if it's not for commercial gain, but personal use). I would rather see a flat internettax which gives you the right to download/upload works for personal use, than a system like we have now. My basuis for it is not that theft is worse, of course (makes little sense), but because I think most of our IP laws are inherently and hopelessly borked. Abolishement of some types of IP in some fields are necessary (IMHO), and the rest has need of a serious revision.
"However, take my speeding example. More people speed, and do so consistently, than have ever infringed copyright. Yet we shouldn't just get rid of speed limits, or even raise them considerably higher."
I disagree. If the speedlimits are systematically broken on a massive scale, there is reason to get rid of them or to raise them. The problem here is, that the majority of the people also don't want more deaths on the roads, and thus most people will agree to speedlimits even though they speed themselves now and then - there isn't really an alternative to it. I doubt, however, that this would be true for copyright-infringement (for personal use); most people wouldn't mind getting rid of those laws, certainly not if other alternatives are possible to support the artists (like the flat fee internettax).
As for your argument that download and upload is not the same thing: point taken (at least, in some countries). but then again, in some countries even the upload isn't considered copyright-infringement. And in some even the download is. My point rather was; even if download would be infringement everywhere, and all people are conscient that they are downloading copyrighted material, would the downloading stop/reduces considerably? I don't think so. Contrary to your claim, I suspect most already know it's not strictly koosher what they're doing with their P2P progs...they just don't care. It's too damn convenient, and it's in human nature. It's a bit like trying to forbid gambling; it just won't work, nomatter how severe the laws get.
"That being said, I think copyright terms ought to be shortened. The minimum now is 70 years, assuming the creator dies the moment he obtains a copyright. That is ridiculous."
Yeah, I never understood that neither, if the purpose of it is to promote new works. Say, for instance, the timeperiod is 40 years...that would mean, an author who creatd a book at 20, can live of it untill he's 60. Now, if, by that time, he still hasn't made another work, then it isn't really promoting much, is it? and if he did create new works, then there is no problem, because he still can have a reasonable living.
The most crazy part is, that now it's 70 years *AFTER* the *death* of the author. I mean, what, we're stimulating his creativity beyond the grave? We're expecting a dead corpse to create new works?
lol
;-)
You're *almost* right, as almost everyone can notice!
"One could say that even though Copyright Infringement can be considered theft, they have a more appropriate charge of "copyright infringment.""
Why would it be more appropriate, if it's exactly the same?
The fact that courts use different names is because they are considered different crimes. The reason why they are considered thus, is because they *do* differ.
Now, ofcourse, "one" could say it's theft - the RIAA, for instance, or even the prosecuter. But then they aren't using the terminology and the interpretation of the laws and the courts - nay, not even of the dictionary.
IF the premise is, that to speak of 'theft' something must actually have been stolen (e.g. the original owner *has* been deprived of something), then copyright-infringement is not theft.
Another interpretation - as I said in my other post - might come to the conclusion it *is* theft... but for me (and the law/courts/most dictionaries and people), that condition is a sine qua non to speak of 'theft'. If *you* do not see that as a prerequisite for it to be considered theft, then it might well be, that, within your own interpretation, you can deduce it is theft.
"That's an exchange of goods and services."
And isn't that based on a desire?
Well, it's true I was trying to be lightharted, but I'll try to give a more in-dept answer to your post:
The basic mistake is your premise that desire does not imply a right. In fact, rights are *always* derived from desires. Only; some make it into law, and others don't. This has mostly to do with how strong the desire is, and (in a democracy) how many people have that desire.
I think this is a fact that can't really be denied. For instance, say the majority of the populace desires strongly enough that all IP-rights would be abolished, and they elect a party in power that does exactly just that. Where is your right, then? Rights are just legally binding concepts that society thinks is desirable. So, while not every desire of every individual automatically makes it to a right (you were right in that - forgive the pun), it still is true that it are the underlying desires that make a right, ultimately. If there would be a desire to 'consume' software or media one cannot afford by other means, it is quite possiblerights are developed that may grant you that (as in the case of the french parliament, which passed a law that allowed the download of content for personal use, by creating a flat tax on the internetconnections to compensate the artists).
In short, I would claim desires and rights are very strongly linked.
"I just want to make sure I understand your argument. It shouldn't be considered theft, if the thief was not going to purchase it anyway. hmmm.. sounds flawed."
hmmm...strange. Your the second one that completely misses the point. The reasoning is not about wanting to pay something or not, the reasoning is, that one must prove something has actually been stolen, before you can accuse someone of theft.
In your funny analogy, the premise is, that he *already* has stolen the product, but didn't want to pay for it. Thus, the theft lies in the fact, that he took something away, and therefor it can not be defended by saying he didn't want to pay for it. You can not, however, claim the theft lies in the fact that he 'took away revenue', if it's not proven that there was any revenue taken away by his copying of it - simply because it is *not* a fact.
In a non-digital context, it would be akin to judge a person as a shoplifter, even when the shop has no basis for it's allegation that anything was stolen - but that he 'might' have stolen something, because there's a self-made copy of a product they sell at his home.
Can that shop make a case for 'theft'? I don't think so. At most they can try to get him for copyright-infringement (if they have a copyright on that product). It clearly shows that 'theft' and 'copyright-infringement' are two seperate issues.
"So is shoplifting not theft because the shoplifter would not have purchased the item anyway?"
I thougt I made the reasoning clear, but aparently I didn't.
If you shoplift, you *take away the product*; therefor, you deprive the owner of his product.
With copyright-infringement, you don't deprive the owner of his product, you take a *copy* of it. You ALSO do not deprive him of revenue, if that revenue wouldn't have happened anyway.
So, basically, one has no case because the owner wasn't deprived of anything. In your shoplifting example, the owner is clearly deprived of something, namely his product.
"Besided who said that murder can't be defined as "theft of life"?"
One can define whatever one wants to define. I can define 'speech' as 'censorship' and vice versa, but in normal conversations, to have any succes in having a sensible discussion, we normally don't give interpretations as we see fit.
Now, as I already said (subjective semantic interpretation) one can call murder 'theft of life', but everyone (at least, most normal people) understand quite well that it isn't *really* a case of theft. And certainly we can all agree that the law and the courts don't deal with it as a case of theft. Neither do they with copyright-infringement, so the whole "why can't I call something whatever I want" is rather irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and only serves to obfuscate proper logical reasoning in regard to the matter.
To make things even more clear: if your interpretation of theft is such, that an action (of copying) you feel is improper, even when nothing has been taken away from the owner, constitutes theft, then I gladly concede the point. I, however (and I think most courts and laws) do not follow you in that interpretation.