" I know it's the next step on the Slashdot anti-copyright argument go-to list, but it's just total bullshit in this context, even if it's true as a statement of fact."
Well, that would depend on the context, wouldn't it?;-)
*I* only use that further argumentation in regard to people (or their argumentation) who continue to try to make a case for copyright-infringement to be 'theft of revenue' (because they obviously have to acknowledge that the original owner is not deprived from his original product).
I agree that this further argumentation is not necessary and irrelevant if it is already accepted that it's not 'theft' in any context.
"I am also not sure why the ideal world wouldn't include that the authors and inventors profit from their labors."
Because copyright is a *monopoly* given by *the state*. It's not the states' job to cater to special interest-groups, rather they have the duty to be beneficial for their populace as a whole. Thus, the question from the the perspective of the state should be: 'what benefits most to all the citizens/society as a whole?', NOT 'what financially benefits authors or inventors most?'. The creation of more wealth for a small subgroup of society (certainly when it would actually hamper the creation of new works and inventions), isn't and shouldn't be the goal of the state.
The reason why IP-rights were given in the first place, is the (maybe unvalid) assumption that the financial benefits for the authors/inventors would lead to more works and inventions (e.g. the 'promotion of science and arts'), because from the perspective of the state, the creation of new works and inventions is what's most beneficial for society.
"I think our basic disagreement lies here: if there was no guarantee in the law that an author could profit from his work, I don't think that would be an environment in which the maximum number of works would be created."
I think the parent poster doesn't really disagrees, but he leaves the possibility open. As do I. I rather think it depends on the field it pertains to, and what kind of IP-rights we are talking about (copyright, patents, trademarks,..?). For instance, I think it IS possible for musicians to still make music (making new works), even without copyright on their Cd's. A few exeptions not withstanding, most musicians never see a dime of those sales anyway; they earn most of their money my going on a tour, and give life-performances.
So clearly (and this was what the parent poster was saying), things are not as black&white as you seem to think. It is quite possible that many works would still be made (and even more so, due to derivates) with the abolishing of (some) IP-rights, depending on the field. Others may, indeed, be worse off - in the sense that less works might be produced. the optimal solution is, as the parent poster said, in looking what fields benefit from it (in the same sense), and which not. And another is to look at the maximal benefit for society in determing the level of IP protection (for how long, etc.), even to those were it has been demonstrated to be beneficial.
So, basically, you can find yourself more with those slashdotters that argue for no copyright at all, than for those who would want to shorten it?;-)
Of course, the argument goes a bit beyond your assertation that 'slashdotters' (that would be you too, btw) want more moderate IP laws because they want to download the lastest film. In fact, the argument I have seen is that IP-laws should be beneficial to society as a whole, and that the purpose of it has always been to promote science and arts. It those condituions aren't met, then something should change about the IP laws.
This reason remains valid, *even* if a lot of slashdotters *would* download the latest blockbusters.
"So called intellectual property does need protection in order to encourage invention and innovation, but after a point (20 years at most), that protection starts having a stifling effect."
It 'does need' protection? It's only after 20 years it starts having a stiffling effect?
"Intellectual property indeed DOES need to be defended, but this article is a weak defense. The basis for IP is in fact based in Article 1 of the constitution:
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" "
I find your assertion that it 'indeed' needs to be defended contentious, especially since you base it on a quote that doesn't really indicate it needs to be defended. What it says is, that it is needed for the promotion of science and arts. However, nobody has really proven that at least patens *does* promote science and art; it is only assumed by some that it does. But in fact, many researchpapers have found that it (at least our current implementation of IP) rather hampers science and art. Thus, even when accepting your reason for it, if it is true that it does not promote, than the basis for it becomes unvalid, and we do not *need* to defend it.
(Even if it was proven beyond doubt that it promotes science, it would still be necessary to have an optimal result, thus, have a system in place where IP-laws are such, that science and art is MOST promoted.)
"Almost everyone would agree that SOME kind of intellectual property protection is necessary and just."
"First of all, "almost everyone" isn't "everyone"."
The criticism you have about what he said, seems to be equally applicable to what you said.
The 'almost everyone' sentence is used to imply that it has more validity because of numbers (e.g. 'everyone knows that...'). You correctly point out that this is a fallacy, and that the implication is far from substantiated - even though you used the same technique.
"Well.. maybe Jack now he has two listeners but no additional sale."
But would he have had an additional sale if that copy hadn't been made? After all, it's quite possible that Stan would not have bought the song if he had to pay for it. So, even when accepting your premise (which is debatable on itself), it is far from certain that it is actual theft.
"And unless Nancy can learn to perform in public, she will never recoup her losses due to copyright infringment (theft of service)."
That's subjective semantic interpretation of what constitutes theft. One could as wel say murder is 'theft of life'. The courts don't condemn you for theft though, but for murder in that case. The same is true for copyright-infringement and all your other examples.
"For instance, let's imagine that someone copies your genetic pattern and clones another you. Sure, he's not you - has different memories and such - but still, isn't that YOUR dna?"
I would rather call that '(genetic) rape' than theft, really.
Also...it is not possible to copy your genetic pattern without actually having and using the original genes. Thus, if there is thievery, it because they took away your genes without your permission.
I thought your post to be well-balanced and reasoned, though one small remark:
"There certainly is some rationale for ignoring unjust laws,"
True.
" but those who do so should at least admit that that's what they're doing - it IS stealing as our current law defines it, even if the current laws don't seem reasonable."
Untrue. I'm quite sure you (and others) may be of the opinion that it is theft, but the law and the courts disagree. the problem with defining it as theft that broadly, is that than one could as well equate everything with theft. You can say murder is 'the theft of life', but semantics aside, the crime there is not theft, it is murder. A whole lot can be seen as 'theft' in that way, but it is necessary to make a distinction, certainly in a legal sense. Thus, copyright-infringement is NOT theft - it is copyright-infringement. Thus, contrary to what you claim (well, unless you're in a country I don't know anything about) current law does not define copyright-infringement as theft. If I'm wrong about that, please show me one case of copyright-infringement where the courts condemned the culprits on the legal nominator of 'theft'.
there is good reason to make a difference too: thievery means you take something away from someone; when you copy something you make *a copy* of it, you do not take away the original. some claim it is 'theft of revenue', but that's equal to saying 'theft of life' for murder. Legally, this has no merrit. Furthermore, even when one would accept that premise, it still would have to be shown that revenue was actually lost. It's quite possible, for instance, that a person downloading a song, would never have bought it otherwise. If he would never have bought it, the company can't claim it lost revenue through his copying. And there is no such think as a crime called 'potential thievery'.
Mind you, I'm not saying copyright-infringement isn't illegal (though how justified that is, is indeed questionable), I'm just saying there is more than enough grounds for not equalling it to theft (at least, in a legal sense).
"There could be lots of reasons why someone views one as reprehensible and the other as acceptable[]"
That's probably because some ARE more reprehensable than others, wouldn't you say?
If all 'crimes' were equally reprehensable or acceptable, the courts wouldn't make such huge differences in regard to their sentencing, and the law would not have such huge differences concerning jailtime (including even capital punishment). Mind you, in some cases, it's difficult to know what is more reprehensible than other things, since it's ultimately very subjective and arbitrary (and it changes with time anyway, so its rather dynamic). But it can not be denied that in every culture there ARE things deemed to be more reprehensible or acceptable than others.
I would claim that any laws wich are massively broken by their populace should be revised. And I think copyrights in the digital age are massively infringed upon. Let's face it; if one would get automatic jailtime for each case of copyright-infringement, how much % of the populace at large (which have internet connection) would have to go in jail? 70%? 80%? More? There is little doubt that almost all pupils and students would have to go to prison, then, especially with the current mp3-rage. Is it reasonable to have laws which, when applied consistently and thourougly, would incarcerate a large part of your own populace? I don't think so. I think, if that's the case, new laws and mechanisms are in order, like the French parliament did, when they introduced a flat fee internet tax to compensate artists for their works. (Alas, thanks to the new bureaucratic EU directives, this law has been reduced to nothing.)
As another poster already indicated, this is a spurious reasoning.
If you construe 'theft' as anything that is deprived from someone else, then a myriad of things could be deemed to be 'stealing'. In fact, the terminology would become next to useless. We both know the law and the courts don't see it that way, because of the simple reason that equalizing everything to theft would be completely unbalanced towards the crime that was commited. I'm sure this will not convince you one iota, but let's cut the crap and go beyond our mere opinions: copyright-infringement and theft are viewed by the courts as something differently, just like all those other examples the other poster gave.
Furthermore, EVEN if we would take your premise as true, and consider it 'theft of revenue', than still one would have to prove that revenue was lost because of the copying. After all, it's fully possible that someone copies something, that he otherwise would never have bought. If he never would have bought it, the company can not claim they lost any revenue because of his copying. You can not convict someone of 'potential thievery'.
Both reasons are more than enough to counter your assertion that it is theft, based on your own opinion that it is.
"I don't want to use the term DRM any longer," said Zitter, who added that content-protection technology could enable various new applications for cable operators.'"
While at the same time it would disable various old rights for consumers.
Typical corporate thinking: "How can we manipulate consumers into suckers that accept everything we tell them? Hmmm...let's change the name and spin some crap to make it sound awesome!"
The sad thing is, sometimes, this actually works.:-/
While I thought your post was rational and well-balanced for an american (j/k!;-), I have to wonder about this though:
"That said, (minefield time) I do agree that there's far more anti-American feelings than warranted. If Portugal (just for a random example) found itself in our position it would do the exact same thing."
Was it your intention to substantiate/justify your primary claim (that there is more a-americanism than waranted) with the next sentence, which claims any country in the same position would do the same?
Because if it is, it rather fails to validate the claim. Portugal or other countries might do the same; it doesn't mean that, if/when they get 'anti-feelings' themselves, it is unwaranted. I do not see how the latter fact (even if true), would somehow give credence to the first (the claim). There is no valid reasoning possible to argument that anti-americanism is unwarranted/too much, because other countries have done the similar in the past. I'm quite sure they got flack for doing those things too. Maybe not enough in comparison to your taste, but note a mentality can change during the course of history; slavery, for instance, used to be commonly accepted. If, as a country, one would condone slavery 300 years ago, nobody would make much of it. If you did the same now, all nations would crucify that country.
I have, however, little doubt that, in our timeframe, were any EU-country to do all the same things as the USA does, they would get the same amount of anti-feelings (and maybe even more, from its EU-members). So, I don't think you can make the case that the feelings are unwaranted, certainly not based on what you said.
"Frankly I expected better from someone with a 4 digit ID."
Ermm... right. I mean; right! But lets not repeat ourselves, shall we?:-)
It's geopolitics, sure. And I don't understand why some USA'ers have such difficulties grasping the concept that the EU wants to hold control of a GPS-like system. I mean, just reverse it: would the USA accept that the GPS system they are using would be under the control of the EU? Me thinks not.
"Oh, you don't think the EU would ever go to war against the US? Just wait till the oil and water start running out."
*me coughs and point to your first paragraph*
While I don't have warm fuzzy feelings for the USA myself, and I think their current government deserves all the flack they get, it's a bit of a strecth to think the EU would wage war against them. They are still allies, after all...egocentric, empirialistic allies who bully or screw over other countries when it suits them, perhaps, but still allies. I doubt we would ever go to war to eachother (though I have little doubt that, if their government keeps their current attitude up and running, things will continue to deteriorate rapidly). besides, if there IS ever going to be war between us, it's more likely the USA will attack us, then vice versa.
For us to wage war to them, there would need to be a whole set of things to happen:
1)general deterioration of the foreign policies and relationships at the current bush administration level (or worse) for the next ten years. Say, they illegally invade yet another country.
2)a grave and immediate cause (for instance, the USA invading holland to retrieve their soldiers who are prosecuted for crimes against humanity)
3)a considerable reduction of USA army-forces (or a surprise attack which would have the same result). Because, let's face it, even with the combined military forces of the EU, we're still no match for them on a purely military level. A classical head-on frontal attack will be suicide.
4)which leads me to the next topic, and why I think an outright total war between us is impossible: nuclear warheads. Let's face it, both the US and the EU have enough nukes to completely destroy eachother. Such a situation keeps things in a state of cold war, even when the 3 other reasons would all be fulfilled.
In conclusion; even if things would go down the drain, at most some fringe military skirmishes far from our main territory would happen, or more likely some trade-war and 'pony-war'/ cold war style thing would happen. Total war seems implausable: Bush may be stupid, but he's not THAt stupid. Well, ok, he might be, but his advisors aren't. Besides, I have high hopes the democrats will win next time around, and with a bit of luck, this will remain the speculative pondering which it is.
Civ1 is really too old and has nothing that civ2 doesn't have better. Civ3 sucked. And civ4...well, I never played it yet.
But civ2...that game still rocks, even though it's starting to show its age (graphically). I wish they would make an improved version of civ2. I mean, staying exactly within the same sort of gameplay (not like civ3) but with slight improvements (more tribes, more units, better AI, maybe online possibilities...) and better graphics.
I would still pay 20 bucks for such an upgraded civ2.
lol. I knew I that was comming, when I saw my typo's.;-)
I'm not a native english speaker, but it's true I could have gotten rid of the majority of the typo's if I had done 'preview'. I just kinda typed it in the 'spur of the moment'.
Seeing it afterwards, I regret it...but I have had this before; I'm just cought up in the 'wave' of writing something as fast as my ideas about it pop up. It's difficult to stop and calmly check for spelling-errors, in those instances. (Maybe that's a polite way of saying I'm sometimes lazy.;-)
But still... now it looks like I'm only as good a writer as the average redneck in the USA...
I have a feeling that if I hadn't been too lazy to spell-check, it might have been less obvious;-)
Or maybe not, because the USA mentality really ticks me off. That's to say...I'm well aware there are states where the people have more open-minded and modern ideas too, but all those bible-belt states full of redneck-mentality 'reborn christians' are gaining far too much power in dictating peoples' life in the USA, IMHO.
Your comment is truelly remarkable and gtives an idea of the completely screwed up mentality USa people have (at least, a part of it, and most likly the bible-belt part).
In my country, nobody would give a rats' ass if a teacher DId say she/he got drunk the night before. What, you think pupils or students are going to get traumatised? Seems to be going on a lot of traumas, lately, including 'online rape'. For Gods' sake; when are you guys going to get a grip? Your problems mainly stem just *because* you treat youth as if they were some alien beings who can have no idea what's the real world all about. Of course, they DO know all to well, but because of the paniced reactions everywhere, they never have learned how to deal with it in a normal fashion.
To be 21 before you can sip a glass of alcohol...meh; ridiculous. In most european countries, you can drink alcohol when you're 16. and when your parents let see sip from their beers, even when you're only nine, no-one makes any fuss about it - because it isn't. the rerality is, if ypou treat drinking beer as no big deal, and you let them taste it, they usually go: "yukkie, that's awful." and don't want to try it out anymore. Also, when you drink with kids in a social context (e.g. not binge drinking stuff), they are more inclined to follow that pattern. If you treat it as something special, it gets 'forbidden fruit' status, and if they only have peers to look how to act when confronted with alcohol, that's when shit happens.
In france, kids often drink 'table-wine' (wine with moderate alcohol-level) as a normal thing, in Belgium the same with table-beer, etc. do they have more drunks and alcohol-problems there, then in the USA with its 21-year law? Not at all. In fact, the prevalence of problematic drinking (like binge-drinking) is way LOWER there than in anglo-saxon countries, where the restriction to alcohol is much more severe. The whole concept of 'save the children' in the USA has gone way overboard, to the detriment of the youths themselves.
In a reasonable country, the fact that a teacher was drunk has nothing to do with her professionalism *unless* she was drunk during the course of her work, obviously. But if she got drunk outside her professional hours, even if she puts hundreds of photos about it on the net, it doesn't say anything about her capacities as a teacher. It's the same crap and obsession of the USA with irrelevant nonsense as back with Clinton getting a blowjob, over and over again. What you do in your private life - EVEN if it comes out in the open (as long as it's legal) - DOES NOT and SHOULD NOT have any bearings on how you are treated while exercising your profession.
In the USA, I wonder if a teacher can say something which is scientifically true but socially/politically-incorrect, like stating that moderate consumption of alcohol is actually healthy. These days, especially in the bible-belt states, I think no teacher can say that without risk of being fired or being severly reprimanded. Please correct me if I'm wrong in this. That obsession of weeding out the political incorrect and having to 'cry wolf' with all the other wolves (the prevailing mentality) is sickening.
In summary:
1)Drinking is no big deal 2)Posting pics about it is no big deal
Conclusion: as long as whatever she does is not illegal and does not affect her actual professionalism in the classroom, there is no reason why she should be treated the way she was. And even if it was illegal and did affect her teachings, then still it should be determined if it was severe enough to warrant the withdrawal of her diploma.
I'm saying that developers who put their code out there under the GPL (or other OSS licence) are fully aware of what that means, and that those licences are meant for the code to be 'scooped up', and yes, often that other parties can make money of their code. They don't need Sun to protect themselves from themselves.
Nobody minds that Sun wants to pay OSS-devs, and certainly not the devs themselves, but the implication of Sun that the OSS concept will falter and grind to a halt if they don't 'subsidise' it, constitutes ignorance and egoflattery at best.
What, exactly, was flamebait about that? I guess some people only read the title of a post and have knee-jerk reactions. That would normally be considered a surprising attitude, but not to me anymore; I'm not new here.;-) Still, it isn't flamebait by a long shot.
"I wouldn't care if someone were to censor my (or others') view if it results in violence against a group of people."
Well, ofcourse you wouldn't, but that's because you are of the opinion that censorship is a good thing (in those cases). Surely, you must see that's a bit of a circle-reasoning (if you're trying to substantiate the censorship by claiming you wouldn't mind).
Maybe ALF-members wouldn't care if someone were to censor their (or others') view if it results in violence against animals.
I even think Nazi's wouldn't care if someone were to censor their (or others') view if it results in criticism against Nazism.
The problem with all these arguments is, that you START with the premise of what you think is wrong and right, and then say: ok, and this should be forbidden, because I think it deserves no place in our society. Granted, there is no society which can exist without any rules or laws (even libertarian ones would adhere to the 'your freedom ends where anothers' begins'), but there is also no doubt that the more restrictions one imposes, the less freedom one has (inherently), *regardless* of what opinion you have about what is reasonable or not. It still begs the question what counter-arguments you would give if someone else limits your freedom of expression (you want to use) when they prohibit it on the same grounds, namely their arbitrary feelings about a subject they think should not be allowed.
The greatest possible loosening of censorship, however, does not mean society comes to an end. In a practical way, one can just look at different civilisations and see if the censorship is really necessary to maintain society. In that regard (racism, hate-speech, etc.) the USA has far more permissable laws then those in the EU. Now, does it make it impossible to live in that society? Is it crumbling because of it's more (in this regard) censorship-less laws? Is there even a case to be made there is more racism or more far-right wingers compared to the EU?
To all those questions one has to say: no (often the contrary). So is it necessary to impose those more restrictive laws? Not really. So the argument that one needs those laws for society to be working is not true.
What other arguments are there? That racism rubs you the wrong way? Well, me too, but if personal feelings would be the measurement of censorship, than one could censor a whole plethoria of things.
What about doing harm? In the case of (real) childporn, and in case of direct life-threats where people actually got hurt, it is clear that a case can be made that people have been harmed by it to some degree. That's why the USA has laws against that. However, it is not true that the words themselves inherently lead to harm (or the pictures of childporn, if it's virtual). If someone is of the opinion that niggers are inferior beings, then that is his opinion - what else can you call it? If he doesn't act on that opinion, where's the direct, criminal harm? Sure, black people will not like it and may be outraged by it, but if that were to be the measurement of censorship, then, again, a whole lot should be forbidden (showing pictures of Mohammed, for one). And other white folks may react on those words and act on it...but again, then it is those *actions* that should be dealt with, not the words.
The whole question, thus, is *when* (and if) it 'results' in violence. If someone talks racist, but there is no violence, then the argument falls. If someone talks (for instance, when I say Mohammed was a dickhead) and it results in violence...then who is responsible for the violence? Those who talk, or those who actually DO the violence? With your reasoning, since one could construe that my talk (or Mohammed picture showing) ultimately resulted in violence, I could be charged with incitement to civil unrest, or something (many authoritarian countries have such laws, btw). One could argument that it's only those who both talk and cause the violence at the same time thome should be restricted, but then you c
Slashdot Mirror
" I know it's the next step on the Slashdot anti-copyright argument go-to list, but it's just total bullshit in this context, even if it's true as a statement of fact."
;-)
Well, that would depend on the context, wouldn't it?
*I* only use that further argumentation in regard to people (or their argumentation) who continue to try to make a case for copyright-infringement to be 'theft of revenue' (because they obviously have to acknowledge that the original owner is not deprived from his original product).
I agree that this further argumentation is not necessary and irrelevant if it is already accepted that it's not 'theft' in any context.
"I don't see that Google is wrong here; some other company more willing to go along with the government would take their place if they pull out."
"I don't see where I'm wrong here," the hitman said, "if I don't do it, some other hitman would take my place if I pull out".
The argument that doing something unethical becomes ethical (or less unethical) because others would do it if you don't, is nonsensical.
"I am also not sure why the ideal world wouldn't include that the authors and inventors profit from their labors."
e nts-manifesto.html ).
Because copyright is a *monopoly* given by *the state*. It's not the states' job to cater to special interest-groups, rather they have the duty to be beneficial for their populace as a whole. Thus, the question from the the perspective of the state should be: 'what benefits most to all the citizens/society as a whole?', NOT 'what financially benefits authors or inventors most?'. The creation of more wealth for a small subgroup of society (certainly when it would actually hamper the creation of new works and inventions), isn't and shouldn't be the goal of the state.
The reason why IP-rights were given in the first place, is the (maybe unvalid) assumption that the financial benefits for the authors/inventors would lead to more works and inventions (e.g. the 'promotion of science and arts'), because from the perspective of the state, the creation of new works and inventions is what's most beneficial for society.
"I think our basic disagreement lies here: if there was no guarantee in the law that an author could profit from his work, I don't think that would be an environment in which the maximum number of works would be created."
I think the parent poster doesn't really disagrees, but he leaves the possibility open. As do I. I rather think it depends on the field it pertains to, and what kind of IP-rights we are talking about (copyright, patents, trademarks,..?). For instance, I think it IS possible for musicians to still make music (making new works), even without copyright on their Cd's. A few exeptions not withstanding, most musicians never see a dime of those sales anyway; they earn most of their money my going on a tour, and give life-performances.
So clearly (and this was what the parent poster was saying), things are not as black&white as you seem to think. It is quite possible that many works would still be made (and even more so, due to derivates) with the abolishing of (some) IP-rights, depending on the field. Others may, indeed, be worse off - in the sense that less works might be produced. the optimal solution is, as the parent poster said, in looking what fields benefit from it (in the same sense), and which not. And another is to look at the maximal benefit for society in determing the level of IP protection (for how long, etc.), even to those were it has been demonstrated to be beneficial.
While many seem to auto-assume it is always beneficial, this is far from substantiated. In fact, many researshpapers indicate the opposite. (see appendix A and B of http://newsbyte.blogspot.com/2005/07/software-pat
So, basically, you can find yourself more with those slashdotters that argue for no copyright at all, than for those who would want to shorten it? ;-)
Of course, the argument goes a bit beyond your assertation that 'slashdotters' (that would be you too, btw) want more moderate IP laws because they want to download the lastest film. In fact, the argument I have seen is that IP-laws should be beneficial to society as a whole, and that the purpose of it has always been to promote science and arts. It those condituions aren't met, then something should change about the IP laws.
This reason remains valid, *even* if a lot of slashdotters *would* download the latest blockbusters.
"So called intellectual property does need protection in order to encourage invention and innovation, but after a point (20 years at most), that protection starts having a stifling effect."
e nts-manifesto.html )
It 'does need' protection? It's only after 20 years it starts having a stiffling effect?
And that assertion is based on...what, exactly? Certainly not on the researchpapers that have looked into the matter. (see appendix A and B of http://newsbyte.blogspot.com/2005/07/software-pat
"When did desire ever imply a right?"
So the desire of people and companies to get paid for what they're selling does not imply that they have a right to get paid?
Good!
"Intellectual property indeed DOES need to be defended, but this article is a weak defense. The basis for IP is in fact based in Article 1 of the constitution:
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" "
I find your assertion that it 'indeed' needs to be defended contentious, especially since you base it on a quote that doesn't really indicate it needs to be defended. What it says is, that it is needed for the promotion of science and arts. However, nobody has really proven that at least patens *does* promote science and art; it is only assumed by some that it does. But in fact, many researchpapers have found that it (at least our current implementation of IP) rather hampers science and art. Thus, even when accepting your reason for it, if it is true that it does not promote, than the basis for it becomes unvalid, and we do not *need* to defend it.
(Even if it was proven beyond doubt that it promotes science, it would still be necessary to have an optimal result, thus, have a system in place where IP-laws are such, that science and art is MOST promoted.)
"Almost everyone would agree that SOME kind of intellectual property protection is necessary and just."
"First of all, "almost everyone" isn't "everyone"."
The criticism you have about what he said, seems to be equally applicable to what you said.
The 'almost everyone' sentence is used to imply that it has more validity because of numbers (e.g. 'everyone knows that...'). You correctly point out that this is a fallacy, and that the implication is far from substantiated - even though you used the same technique.
"Well.. maybe Jack now he has two listeners but no additional sale."
But would he have had an additional sale if that copy hadn't been made? After all, it's quite possible that Stan would not have bought the song if he had to pay for it. So, even when accepting your premise (which is debatable on itself), it is far from certain that it is actual theft.
"And unless Nancy can learn to perform in public, she will never recoup her losses due to copyright infringment (theft of service)."
That's subjective semantic interpretation of what constitutes theft. One could as wel say murder is 'theft of life'. The courts don't condemn you for theft though, but for murder in that case. The same is true for copyright-infringement and all your other examples.
"For instance, let's imagine that someone copies your genetic pattern and clones another you. Sure, he's not you - has different memories and such - but still, isn't that YOUR dna?"
I would rather call that '(genetic) rape' than theft, really.
Also...it is not possible to copy your genetic pattern without actually having and using the original genes. Thus, if there is thievery, it because they took away your genes without your permission.
I thought your post to be well-balanced and reasoned, though one small remark:
"There certainly is some rationale for ignoring unjust laws,"
True.
" but those who do so should at least admit that that's what they're doing - it IS stealing as our current law defines it, even if the current laws don't seem reasonable."
Untrue. I'm quite sure you (and others) may be of the opinion that it is theft, but the law and the courts disagree. the problem with defining it as theft that broadly, is that than one could as well equate everything with theft. You can say murder is 'the theft of life', but semantics aside, the crime there is not theft, it is murder. A whole lot can be seen as 'theft' in that way, but it is necessary to make a distinction, certainly in a legal sense. Thus, copyright-infringement is NOT theft - it is copyright-infringement. Thus, contrary to what you claim (well, unless you're in a country I don't know anything about) current law does not define copyright-infringement as theft. If I'm wrong about that, please show me one case of copyright-infringement where the courts condemned the culprits on the legal nominator of 'theft'.
there is good reason to make a difference too: thievery means you take something away from someone; when you copy something you make *a copy* of it, you do not take away the original. some claim it is 'theft of revenue', but that's equal to saying 'theft of life' for murder. Legally, this has no merrit. Furthermore, even when one would accept that premise, it still would have to be shown that revenue was actually lost. It's quite possible, for instance, that a person downloading a song, would never have bought it otherwise. If he would never have bought it, the company can't claim it lost revenue through his copying. And there is no such think as a crime called 'potential thievery'.
Mind you, I'm not saying copyright-infringement isn't illegal (though how justified that is, is indeed questionable), I'm just saying there is more than enough grounds for not equalling it to theft (at least, in a legal sense).
"There could be lots of reasons why someone views one as reprehensible and the other as acceptable[]"
That's probably because some ARE more reprehensable than others, wouldn't you say?
If all 'crimes' were equally reprehensable or acceptable, the courts wouldn't make such huge differences in regard to their sentencing, and the law would not have such huge differences concerning jailtime (including even capital punishment). Mind you, in some cases, it's difficult to know what is more reprehensible than other things, since it's ultimately very subjective and arbitrary (and it changes with time anyway, so its rather dynamic). But it can not be denied that in every culture there ARE things deemed to be more reprehensible or acceptable than others.
I would claim that any laws wich are massively broken by their populace should be revised. And I think copyrights in the digital age are massively infringed upon. Let's face it; if one would get automatic jailtime for each case of copyright-infringement, how much % of the populace at large (which have internet connection) would have to go in jail? 70%? 80%? More? There is little doubt that almost all pupils and students would have to go to prison, then, especially with the current mp3-rage. Is it reasonable to have laws which, when applied consistently and thourougly, would incarcerate a large part of your own populace? I don't think so. I think, if that's the case, new laws and mechanisms are in order, like the French parliament did, when they introduced a flat fee internet tax to compensate artists for their works. (Alas, thanks to the new bureaucratic EU directives, this law has been reduced to nothing.)
As another poster already indicated, this is a spurious reasoning.
If you construe 'theft' as anything that is deprived from someone else, then a myriad of things could be deemed to be 'stealing'. In fact, the terminology would become next to useless. We both know the law and the courts don't see it that way, because of the simple reason that equalizing everything to theft would be completely unbalanced towards the crime that was commited. I'm sure this will not convince you one iota, but let's cut the crap and go beyond our mere opinions: copyright-infringement and theft are viewed by the courts as something differently, just like all those other examples the other poster gave.
Furthermore, EVEN if we would take your premise as true, and consider it 'theft of revenue', than still one would have to prove that revenue was lost because of the copying. After all, it's fully possible that someone copies something, that he otherwise would never have bought. If he never would have bought it, the company can not claim they lost any revenue because of his copying. You can not convict someone of 'potential thievery'.
Both reasons are more than enough to counter your assertion that it is theft, based on your own opinion that it is.
"I don't want to use the term DRM any longer," said Zitter, who added that content-protection technology could enable various new applications for cable operators.'"
:-/
While at the same time it would disable various old rights for consumers.
Typical corporate thinking: "How can we manipulate consumers into suckers that accept everything we tell them? Hmmm...let's change the name and spin some crap to make it sound awesome!"
The sad thing is, sometimes, this actually works.
"In 40,000 years, this wayward 185-pound (84 kilogram) lump of metal will pass by the star AC+79 3888 at a distance of 1.64 light-years. ... "
I *live* at AC+79 3888, you unsensitive clod!
That may be true (depending on where you live), but in principle it is an alternative.
While I thought your post was rational and well-balanced for an american (j/k! ;-), I have to wonder about this though:
"That said, (minefield time) I do agree that there's far more anti-American feelings than warranted. If Portugal (just for a random example) found itself in our position it would do the exact same thing."
Was it your intention to substantiate/justify your primary claim (that there is more a-americanism than waranted) with the next sentence, which claims any country in the same position would do the same?
Because if it is, it rather fails to validate the claim. Portugal or other countries might do the same; it doesn't mean that, if/when they get 'anti-feelings' themselves, it is unwaranted. I do not see how the latter fact (even if true), would somehow give credence to the first (the claim). There is no valid reasoning possible to argument that anti-americanism is unwarranted/too much, because other countries have done the similar in the past. I'm quite sure they got flack for doing those things too. Maybe not enough in comparison to your taste, but note a mentality can change during the course of history; slavery, for instance, used to be commonly accepted. If, as a country, one would condone slavery 300 years ago, nobody would make much of it. If you did the same now, all nations would crucify that country.
I have, however, little doubt that, in our timeframe, were any EU-country to do all the same things as the USA does, they would get the same amount of anti-feelings (and maybe even more, from its EU-members). So, I don't think you can make the case that the feelings are unwaranted, certainly not based on what you said.
"Frankly I expected better from someone with a 4 digit ID."
:-)
Ermm... right. I mean; right! But lets not repeat ourselves, shall we?
It's geopolitics, sure. And I don't understand why some USA'ers have such difficulties grasping the concept that the EU wants to hold control of a GPS-like system. I mean, just reverse it: would the USA accept that the GPS system they are using would be under the control of the EU? Me thinks not.
"Oh, you don't think the EU would ever go to war against the US? Just wait till the oil and water start running out."
*me coughs and point to your first paragraph*
While I don't have warm fuzzy feelings for the USA myself, and I think their current government deserves all the flack they get, it's a bit of a strecth to think the EU would wage war against them. They are still allies, after all...egocentric, empirialistic allies who bully or screw over other countries when it suits them, perhaps, but still allies. I doubt we would ever go to war to eachother (though I have little doubt that, if their government keeps their current attitude up and running, things will continue to deteriorate rapidly). besides, if there IS ever going to be war between us, it's more likely the USA will attack us, then vice versa.
For us to wage war to them, there would need to be a whole set of things to happen:
1)general deterioration of the foreign policies and relationships at the current bush administration level (or worse) for the next ten years. Say, they illegally invade yet another country.
2)a grave and immediate cause (for instance, the USA invading holland to retrieve their soldiers who are prosecuted for crimes against humanity)
3)a considerable reduction of USA army-forces (or a surprise attack which would have the same result). Because, let's face it, even with the combined military forces of the EU, we're still no match for them on a purely military level. A classical head-on frontal attack will be suicide.
4)which leads me to the next topic, and why I think an outright total war between us is impossible: nuclear warheads. Let's face it, both the US and the EU have enough nukes to completely destroy eachother. Such a situation keeps things in a state of cold war, even when the 3 other reasons would all be fulfilled.
In conclusion; even if things would go down the drain, at most some fringe military skirmishes far from our main territory would happen, or more likely some trade-war and 'pony-war'/ cold war style thing would happen. Total war seems implausable: Bush may be stupid, but he's not THAt stupid. Well, ok, he might be, but his advisors aren't. Besides, I have high hopes the democrats will win next time around, and with a bit of luck, this will remain the speculative pondering which it is.
If your talking about civ2, I agree.
Civ1 is really too old and has nothing that civ2 doesn't have better. Civ3 sucked. And civ4...well, I never played it yet.
But civ2...that game still rocks, even though it's starting to show its age (graphically). I wish they would make an improved version of civ2. I mean, staying exactly within the same sort of gameplay (not like civ3) but with slight improvements (more tribes, more units, better AI, maybe online possibilities...) and better graphics.
I would still pay 20 bucks for such an upgraded civ2.
" I'd tend to agree with your assessment but you come off so arrogant and self aggrandizing that I can't bring myself to agree with you."
:-p
Sorry!
I know I sometimes come over as someone who thinks he's always right, but that's only because I'm right 99,9% of the time! I can't help it!
hmm...I had a lot more written down, but I should first ask if you're american or not, because otherwise, it might be irrelevant anyway.
lol. I knew I that was comming, when I saw my typo's. ;-)
;-)
I'm not a native english speaker, but it's true I could have gotten rid of the majority of the typo's if I had done 'preview'. I just kinda typed it in the 'spur of the moment'.
Seeing it afterwards, I regret it...but I have had this before; I'm just cought up in the 'wave' of writing something as fast as my ideas about it pop up. It's difficult to stop and calmly check for spelling-errors, in those instances. (Maybe that's a polite way of saying I'm sometimes lazy.
But still... now it looks like I'm only as good a writer as the average redneck in the USA...
I have a feeling that if I hadn't been too lazy to spell-check, it might have been less obvious ;-)
Or maybe not, because the USA mentality really ticks me off. That's to say...I'm well aware there are states where the people have more open-minded and modern ideas too, but all those bible-belt states full of redneck-mentality 'reborn christians' are gaining far too much power in dictating peoples' life in the USA, IMHO.
Your comment is truelly remarkable and gtives an idea of the completely screwed up mentality USa people have (at least, a part of it, and most likly the bible-belt part).
In my country, nobody would give a rats' ass if a teacher DId say she/he got drunk the night before. What, you think pupils or students are going to get traumatised? Seems to be going on a lot of traumas, lately, including 'online rape'. For Gods' sake; when are you guys going to get a grip? Your problems mainly stem just *because* you treat youth as if they were some alien beings who can have no idea what's the real world all about. Of course, they DO know all to well, but because of the paniced reactions everywhere, they never have learned how to deal with it in a normal fashion.
To be 21 before you can sip a glass of alcohol...meh; ridiculous. In most european countries, you can drink alcohol when you're 16. and when your parents let see sip from their beers, even when you're only nine, no-one makes any fuss about it - because it isn't. the rerality is, if ypou treat drinking beer as no big deal, and you let them taste it, they usually go: "yukkie, that's awful." and don't want to try it out anymore. Also, when you drink with kids in a social context (e.g. not binge drinking stuff), they are more inclined to follow that pattern. If you treat it as something special, it gets 'forbidden fruit' status, and if they only have peers to look how to act when confronted with alcohol, that's when shit happens.
In france, kids often drink 'table-wine' (wine with moderate alcohol-level) as a normal thing, in Belgium the same with table-beer, etc. do they have more drunks and alcohol-problems there, then in the USA with its 21-year law? Not at all. In fact, the prevalence of problematic drinking (like binge-drinking) is way LOWER there than in anglo-saxon countries, where the restriction to alcohol is much more severe. The whole concept of 'save the children' in the USA has gone way overboard, to the detriment of the youths themselves.
In a reasonable country, the fact that a teacher was drunk has nothing to do with her professionalism *unless* she was drunk during the course of her work, obviously. But if she got drunk outside her professional hours, even if she puts hundreds of photos about it on the net, it doesn't say anything about her capacities as a teacher. It's the same crap and obsession of the USA with irrelevant nonsense as back with Clinton getting a blowjob, over and over again. What you do in your private life - EVEN if it comes out in the open (as long as it's legal) - DOES NOT and SHOULD NOT have any bearings on how you are treated while exercising your profession.
In the USA, I wonder if a teacher can say something which is scientifically true but socially/politically-incorrect, like stating that moderate consumption of alcohol is actually healthy. These days, especially in the bible-belt states, I think no teacher can say that without risk of being fired or being severly reprimanded. Please correct me if I'm wrong in this. That obsession of weeding out the political incorrect and having to 'cry wolf' with all the other wolves (the prevailing mentality) is sickening.
In summary:
1)Drinking is no big deal
2)Posting pics about it is no big deal
Conclusion: as long as whatever she does is not illegal and does not affect her actual professionalism in the classroom, there is no reason why she should be treated the way she was. And even if it was illegal and did affect her teachings, then still it should be determined if it was severe enough to warrant the withdrawal of her diploma.
How is this flamebait?
;-) Still, it isn't flamebait by a long shot.
I'm saying that developers who put their code out there under the GPL (or other OSS licence) are fully aware of what that means, and that those licences are meant for the code to be 'scooped up', and yes, often that other parties can make money of their code. They don't need Sun to protect themselves from themselves.
Nobody minds that Sun wants to pay OSS-devs, and certainly not the devs themselves, but the implication of Sun that the OSS concept will falter and grind to a halt if they don't 'subsidise' it, constitutes ignorance and egoflattery at best.
What, exactly, was flamebait about that? I guess some people only read the title of a post and have knee-jerk reactions. That would normally be considered a surprising attitude, but not to me anymore; I'm not new here.
"I wouldn't care if someone were to censor my (or others') view if it results in violence against a group of people."
Well, ofcourse you wouldn't, but that's because you are of the opinion that censorship is a good thing (in those cases). Surely, you must see that's a bit of a circle-reasoning (if you're trying to substantiate the censorship by claiming you wouldn't mind).
Maybe ALF-members wouldn't care if someone were to censor their (or others') view if it results in violence against animals.
I even think Nazi's wouldn't care if someone were to censor their (or others') view if it results in criticism against Nazism.
The problem with all these arguments is, that you START with the premise of what you think is wrong and right, and then say: ok, and this should be forbidden, because I think it deserves no place in our society. Granted, there is no society which can exist without any rules or laws (even libertarian ones would adhere to the 'your freedom ends where anothers' begins'), but there is also no doubt that the more restrictions one imposes, the less freedom one has (inherently), *regardless* of what opinion you have about what is reasonable or not. It still begs the question what counter-arguments you would give if someone else limits your freedom of expression (you want to use) when they prohibit it on the same grounds, namely their arbitrary feelings about a subject they think should not be allowed.
The greatest possible loosening of censorship, however, does not mean society comes to an end. In a practical way, one can just look at different civilisations and see if the censorship is really necessary to maintain society. In that regard (racism, hate-speech, etc.) the USA has far more permissable laws then those in the EU. Now, does it make it impossible to live in that society? Is it crumbling because of it's more (in this regard) censorship-less laws? Is there even a case to be made there is more racism or more far-right wingers compared to the EU?
To all those questions one has to say: no (often the contrary). So is it necessary to impose those more restrictive laws? Not really. So the argument that one needs those laws for society to be working is not true.
What other arguments are there? That racism rubs you the wrong way? Well, me too, but if personal feelings would be the measurement of censorship, than one could censor a whole plethoria of things.
What about doing harm? In the case of (real) childporn, and in case of direct life-threats where people actually got hurt, it is clear that a case can be made that people have been harmed by it to some degree. That's why the USA has laws against that. However, it is not true that the words themselves inherently lead to harm (or the pictures of childporn, if it's virtual). If someone is of the opinion that niggers are inferior beings, then that is his opinion - what else can you call it? If he doesn't act on that opinion, where's the direct, criminal harm? Sure, black people will not like it and may be outraged by it, but if that were to be the measurement of censorship, then, again, a whole lot should be forbidden (showing pictures of Mohammed, for one). And other white folks may react on those words and act on it...but again, then it is those *actions* that should be dealt with, not the words.
The whole question, thus, is *when* (and if) it 'results' in violence. If someone talks racist, but there is no violence, then the argument falls. If someone talks (for instance, when I say Mohammed was a dickhead) and it results in violence...then who is responsible for the violence? Those who talk, or those who actually DO the violence? With your reasoning, since one could construe that my talk (or Mohammed picture showing) ultimately resulted in violence, I could be charged with incitement to civil unrest, or something (many authoritarian countries have such laws, btw). One could argument that it's only those who both talk and cause the violence at the same time thome should be restricted, but then you c