"in which developers create free intellectual property only to have others scoop it up and generate huge amounts of revenue."
It seems SUN wants to 'protect' OSS devls against themselves. I, however, am quite confident that, when OSS developers put their program/code under the GPL (or something) they are aware that others might scoop it up. It's *meant* to be scooped up, after all.
No one (notorious fools exepted) is going to open source a product with the expecation they can prevent others from scooping it up - and when under the GPL, they won't expect to prohibit others from making a buck of it neither. The rules are inherent to the Open Sourcing, after all. If you want to keep it all for yourself, then you choose a proprietary licence.
The notion of Sun that the system will fail because others might use the code is mindboggling stupid and contradicted by all grand OSS projects. If people weren't free to 'scoop up' the code, there wouldn't be an OSS in the first place.
"some of the things that you think you're right about, you're actually wrong about, and it's valuable to keep that in mind when comparing your own views to others' views."
This is impossible to determine (who's wrong or not) when it remains an opinion/religious view, etc. That's because there is no way in which to prove or disprove such a view, because through its very nature, it surpasses the observable reality, and arguments are not given. (Well, there might be internal incosnsitencies you can point out, but it's perfectly possible to come up with a (internally) consistent worldview/opinion/religion, which is totally untrue anyway.
Simple comparison will not deal with that. There is only one way to objectively come to any conclusion, and this involves:
1)The subject matter is either observable (e.g. there is a possibilty of scientific falsification) or both parties agree to a premise.
2)you agree to use logic and rationality in deducing the value of any argumentation (and agree that arguments are necessary to substantiate any claim)
If those two criteria aren't met, it's essentially impossible to come to any fruitful determination of who's right or wrong.
Most (pure) opinions, ideologies and religions fall short of those requirements, hence you can not determine who's right or wrong - you still can change of opinion ofcourse, but you can't *determine* what's more correct and what not.
"If some guy comes along and starts parading child porn photos in the streets should we allow him to have his way simply because we do not wish to impose our value system on him?"
As the supreme court has said; the reason why a 'freedom of speech' defense doesn't work with childporn is because a child is harmed while making that porn. This overrules the free speech protection. It was quite clear this is not the case for things like virtual childporn, where no real kids are harmed (there was a FA on slashdot about that, some time ago). Ofcourse, even adult porn wouldn't be allowed in the streets like that, because of the numerous 'decency' laws...but really, these are completely arbitrary. If you will go to the middle east, you will notice that the decency laws there are quite different from ours, especially towards women.
In essence, those decency laws ARE a way of imposing the value system of the majority of a populace on the minority of that populace (which may disagree). Real tolerance would encompass the notion that each group may say what they want, as long as it remains speech (even if it goes against the popular vote).
"If a bunch of guys parade around town in KKK outfits with signs "Kill the Jews! Kill the N****rs" shouldn't we have a say about this sort of behavior?"
Yes, you should have a SAY about this sort of behaviour. And indeed, no-one should be able to stop you exercising your right of free speech to say something about it. In the USA, you CAN walk around in KKK outfits, because, though distastful and many (including me) may not agree with their ideology, it's still a form of speech (as long as they don't act on it). In that instance, the USA is far more free than the EU, where immer more draconian laws are past (but the right-wing movements are way bigger then in the USA regardless).
I'm not sure about the 'kill the nigger' though; I thought even the USA had laws against inciting to hatred or violent crimes, but I'm not sure to what degree. I don't know enough of the laws of canada to comment on that specifically.
But, contrary to you, I would applaud Canada if it had such open-minded laws that support free speech to such high degree. I think you, as many others, confuse the content of the message allowed (racism,...) with the fact that it IS allowed. Once you accept that it is 'reasonable' to censor some forms of free speech with which you do not agree, what is someone else to stop from 'reasonably' censor forms of free speech *you* want to use? In any given population that is big enough, you don't have a truelly universal agreement on what is reasonable or not; you will always have dissenting opinions. Why should those dissenting opinions be denied? I think a society shows more greatness by allowing dissenting speech to occur, than to censor it.
I always wonder what would happen if, in my own country, where the far right has already more then 25% of the votes (even - or maybe thanks to - strict laws against racist talk and what not) would ever gain 66%. There is no doubt in my mind, they would immediately censor any 'reasonable' (in their mind) speech, such as those criticising their racism. In short; the more you censor, the more you're actually acting as a facist movement would do. True democracy should encompas true free speech.
Could you explain the link again between TFA and childprostitution in Thailand? I know demagogic emo-appeal is always a good way to get attention on slashdot, but going from possible censorship on youtube to your 'people-selling-their-kids' paragraph is somewhat of a stretch.
Dude(tte), your argumentation is shifting from the technical merrit of copyright to how men are sexist and women don't find it funny.
Whether you call women who have sex for money prostitutes, whores, courtisanes, or business-oportunists, it has little bearing on copyright and the GPL.
While I'm anti-copyright/patents/*IAAs and such, and think a new businessmodel is in order in this cyberage, I do think you make some well-reasoned points. The responding poster was way out of line, and used more at hominem attacks then real counter-arguments.
I do think, as you, that more then one consideration is made when choosing if and where to buy music. In reverse, however, I also think there is more then one consideration for people to decide to pay something to the musician, even if they can get the song for free. Not all people will go 'everything free and get the finger', provided you have the chance. Which is where the internet/financial possibilities lack. They should introduce a sort of pre-paid buying-card for the internet, where pupîls and students and all other folks can easily get their hands on and use. I doubt the pessimistic view of 'nobody will pay' would hold up then. You would have those of the fanbase, which will always support their musicgroup, you would have those that liked a free song so good they consider it worth a small amount (like me), you would have those who want to 'invest' in free stuff they think is interesting (like with freenet, where, even after 7 years with not much to show for, they've managed to pay a full-time developer for the last 4 years by means of private donations), there would be those who like to feel like a mecenas, or to get a higher profile among peers (with a listing of the highest contributers, for instance), etc.
Many considerations are possible for people to actually pay something, even if they don't need to. Ofcourse, many won't, but then again, many don't use itunes for their music neither, but prefer illegal downloads. It might be enough for creators (at least the more good/popular ones) to live from it - provided there is the oportunity, which, even with paypal, is severly limited thusfar.
All in all, legality and all that doesn't concern many people, certainly not the youth and the computer-savvy. Maybe parents and older folks are more prone to that.
The real issue is ease-of-use, I think, just as you said. For most - certainly the older generation - it's far more easy to browse a page with clearly indicated songs and an easy to navigate menustructure (and a good d/l-connection), then to install a bittorrent and search/download it that way.
But still, in my opinion, the MPAA may dissapear without a trace, and I wouldn't shed a tear, because I think they do more harm then good, and are an obstruction between the artist and his public, instead of an asset.
well, certainly, there is harm done (=the killing of a person), but is it the speech that did the harm, or the action?
I think one can make the case it's the action, because, without the action, no harm would have been done, and the person in question would still be alive. Ofcourse, one could argue that it's only the hitman that has done the action...but as the parent poster said, when you payed the hitman, you've also contributed with an action that goes beyond pure speech, so you also contributed to the harm.
I think one needs a clear definition of speech to begin with, because, if you se speech as an action, and that action leads to harm, then the conclusion is, that speech causes harm. If you don't see it that way, then speech doesn't. On itself, however, it is dificult to argument that speech harms; there is always an extra physical action necessary to cause harm.
(well, I'm not going into the debate of psychological harm;-)
"Speech can not do physical harm, so speech can not be criminal, no matter how repulsive it is."
I notice a fellow-free speech adept? I'm a pro free speech humanistic libertarian myself, but I do have some problems when trying to remain consistent. I'm curious about your ideas about some issues, and the question to you is: is it free speech/expression and should it be allowed or forbidden? (and if possible; why or why not):
- libel/slander
- yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre
- saying/writing something verbatim from someone else
- virtual childporn
- real pornographic images of a minor, but where the minor took the pictures all by himself and of himself and wants to publish it at age 18?
- racist remarks
- books that deny the holocaust
- books/speech that call for illegal action
- literature that describes in detail how to make WMDs.
How would the free society as you view it deal with these topics?
"There is no question that forced online sexual activity -- whether through text, animation, malicious scripts or other means -- is real;"
No, it isn't; it's virtual. There is no such thing as 'forced online sexual activity' since you can't be forced to be or to remain online. Calling this 'rape' is an insult to all real rape-victims. At any moment of that so called 'online rape' you can decide to ban the culprit or even go offline, thereby ending the 'rape'; I would like to see that oportunity to real rape-victims. If this is deemed to be equal to rape, then I guess when I kill someone in a second-life-like world, I can be prosecuted for murder too. Meh.
"Our laws say that an adult subjecting a teenager or child to sexual words, images or suggestions on the internet is preying on their mental and emotional state in a sexual way. Even if you never try to meet the minor in person, and even if you never touch them or expose your naked self to them, it is a crime to attempt to engage sexually with a minor. If it is a criminal offense to sexually abuse a child on the internet, how can we say it is not possible to rape an adult online?"
Well, she has a point there, but only because those laws too aren't really all that logical to begin with. The reason why it is deemed illegal is because it is deemed the adult IS preying on them, not because of the images or words themselves. If it were, then it wouldn't matter whether or not an adult send them, would it? I mean, some people seem to be unaware of how teenagers themselves talk about sex in chatrooms; and it's not that they do not engages in 'sexual words, images and or suggestions'. Sometimes I think I'm living on another planet where prudes think their wishes are real. So, logically, it is untainable that the words or images themselves are harmful, otherwise kids would go in prison for saying sexual things to eachother too (mind you, the USA makes a valiant try in doing so). What is the difference between two 14 years olds sending 'dirty pics' to eachother and one 14 year old and one adult pretending to be a 14y old showing exactly the same pics? Certainly not the pics, which are supposedly doing the damage.
So there is definitely something illogical about this, because, if it's the fact that the other party is an adult, then how can it harm if it isn't noticed he's an adult? The only thing that makes sense is the preying/forcing itself...but then we come back to the first paragraph, and the fact that being forced online or forced in real life is a totally different thing.
"That's not to say I dismiss the trauma a person suffers after being raped online."
Huh? I must be on another planet again. Is the writer from the USA, mayhaps? It's at most a nuisance; ban him or complain to the moderators, and that's that. For gods' sake, if you're traumatised by something that virtually happend to your avatar online, there is something wrong with you to begin with.
"A virtual rape is by definition sudden, explicit and often devastating. If you've never immersed yourself in online life, you might not realize the emotional availability it takes to be a regular member of an internet community. The psychological aspects of relating are magnified because the physical aspects are (mostly) removed."
And here we come to the crux of the matter: people complaining about 'rape' online have a borderline syndrome, where they are unable to see a distinction anymore between their real selves and their online avatars. They have effectively substituted real life for Second Life, and that's why they think rape in Second Life is equal to rape in real life. It's rather pathetic. The only reason why a person would think it is 'devastating' is because he/she can't differentiate anymore between her real life and her avatar. People should get a grip; getting 'raped' or 'killed' online is annoying at most, but it's not happening to you; *you* have not been raped or murdered.
"But in a game, you don't want to lose the long-term investment you've made
Ermm...you DO realise all your analogies are bogus and unvalid, right? Since I think no-one is that daft, I think it's done deliberatly, but I'll spell it out anyway:
1)In all your examples, the actions that were taken by the 'culprits' had an effect on, and were relevant to, the unethical behaviour. It is ridiculous to take irrelevant matters into consideration when adressing unethical behaviour of a company or country. For instance, say in south-Africa, during the apartheid, the electricity-network worked perfectly. Is it reasonable to ask for the removal of that network because it was created by a south-african government who segregated blacks and whites? Can you not support a good working electricity-net without supporting apartheid? That sounds like a... black and white mentality.
2)I doubt the code Reiser wrote has any relevance to his (suspected) murder, and the continuing support of it (or not) will not change anything in that regard. Code is neutral. It doesn't have any ethical implications on itself, and it doesn't have any value in deterring Reiser from (not) commiting murder, and that would have been true even before he murdered his wife (if he has).
3)If works - nomatter what intrinsic value it may have - of people are disregarded because of the actions of their creators - even when it's irrelevant to their behaviour anymore, then there is no end in sight. Plato and a whole plethoria of ancient greek and roman writers (and probably even Leonardo da Vinci and Shakespeare) did it with -18 year-old boys; should we all throw away their work and remove it completely, and all references made to those works? (Or shouldn't we have at least done so when homosexuality was deemed illegal - which was the case even hardly 60 years ago?) Should we throw away all works of people who are responsible for killing people (even mass murder)? Then there goes Karl Marx and Mein Kampf and hundreds of other books. One can only hope Newton or Darwin or Einstein never turn up to have done something ethically repulsive... And what about countries who commited crimes, say, in Iraq? Am I or you supporting their behaviour by drinking Coke? Can you even find a country which didn't do something wrong in their history to spend your tourist-money in? When consequently applied, and the relevance to the actions do not matter, you can't do squad anymore, not even use the internet...which you aparently do.
Your biggest mistake in all this (and people thinking like you) is this: you think because you are using something that is made by people who've done something wrong (which varies in time anyway), that you are supportive of their wrongful actions. This, however, is not true, and is based on irrational knee-jerk feelings, not on rational thoughts and logical consistency.
"then seeking to recreate a "clean" version if the amount of work involved is reasonable."
No, it isn't. In fact, it has nothing to do with reason at all, and you yourself indicated as much; it's about an emotional reaction based on a feeling of distastfulness about the action of a person and projecting that feeling to cover the (non-murderous and neutral) code he created.
" Lots people claibing to libertarian who don't know what a libertarian actually is think this is the case and we need no government. --This is wrong."
True. Lots of people also think libertarians are for ultra-capitalism in an unregulated 'free' market, and oppose any form of welfare by the state, but that isn't true neither. There are actually myriads of subgroups of libertarians, as one can see on wikipedia, for instance: it's not quite that much of a well-defined group. You have right-libertarians, left-libertarians, anarcho-libertarians, objectivists, humanitarian libertarians (which are close to me), green libertarianism, etc.
The basic tenent is the principle of self-ownership (life, liberty, free speech, etc.)...but the specific details of how a society should look with that principle in mind varies wildly, even among libertarians.
But what is sure that the USA (and slowly the EU) is turning into a form of corporatism, where politicians mainly cater to the corporations, not their citizens. To some extend, this has always been true, and I don't think one can prevent it completely... but one sure as hell can put up a fight. The current methods of 'lobbying' in the USA amounts to legal bribery (and corruption). But the real annoying thing is, nobody really cares much about it; if a senator comes up with a proposal to benefit a certain industry, and those industries are found to be a big contributor to said senator, nobody is surprised, and it is accetpted by the US populace as something 'normal'. It's THAT attitude people should change, not fighting the corporations head as if it were the proverbial windmills. Once you make it unnacceptable/illegal to bribe (or call it lobbying with money), you have a much better chance of combating corporatism.
Well, heck, the brain can be seen as a computational device, and as proven in Iraq, it could well be placed in your lap for less then $10 (unless you use really expensive bullits/knifes).
That said, for getting a still working prototype in its original casing (where you can give some input and get some output) in your lap, it will probably cost more then $10 - well...I don't know how the prices are in India, actually, but after a few times the $10 will not cover it anymore, and the prototype will become unresponsive.;-)
Seriously though; semantics aside, we all know they didn't meant paper and pen. You are however right in that the Indian government will be swindled again. (Ofcourse, it's quite possible *some* politicians will fare well because of it.)
laptop/læptp/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lap-top] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation -noun a portable, usu. battery-powered microcomputer small enough to rest on the user's lap.
- That would involve a completely new production method based on dirt-cheap (e.g. paper) materials, and being ready for mass production, which is unlikely to happen within two years time. Especially since it would have to work together with mainstream (recycled) electronics.
- That paper-made device would not be new (see the recycled stuff) nor have any of the specifications needed to call it a laptop (rechargable batteries?). What you're describing is rather a second-hand, papier-maché thin-client with awful specs. Even when created no-one would want it, and it certainly wouldn't be a laptop.
"That's also what people have said about the OLPC when it was announced."
Not true, at least not by people knowing something of IT/computers. By the time they proposed their OLPC project, there were already desktops on the market selling at $199 with better specifications (and a HD of 30GB) - though without screen, granted, but a 7,5 inch screen is not very expensive. It is fully in the realm of the possible to create a laptop with less good specifications for $145, and indeed, with mass-production even just under $100. It is impossible, however, to go below the marginal costs of a product (and still remain in business), which, for the OLPC, can be estimated to be around $80-$90 (thus; even with large volumes). The moment they will say that such an OLPC-device with the current specs will be sold for less then 80 bucks, I will call that an impossibilty too, and rightfully so. The only way that would be possible is if *completely* new, dirt cheap production-methods and materials are used, which is doubtful to happen in the next two years (which is the timeframe of the OLPC to be mass-produced and the indian-made one to be developed).
While it is always dangerous to predict long term technological development, especially in IT, I am willing to wager that anything produced for $10 in two years time, will not be worth the name 'laptop'. At most, it will be a worthless PDA-like device, with abhorent specs, probably worse than what I described in my former post - and even then the batteries won't be included. Let's not forget India already tried to make a home-made 'dirt-cheap' computer for $100...and it flopped miserably. And now they're going to make one for $10? Yeah right.
There is NO WAY in which a laptop can cost only $10, unless it is heavily subsidised by the state. Idian labour is cheap, but not THAT cheap (it's more expensive then china, for instance). Mass production will make things cheaper, but not THAT much cheaper (the raw materials and manufacturing still has a bottom price, after all).
If they're ever going to create something that goes below the $20 it would be amazing enough, but even then it would be a (technological) marginal device and completely out of the league with even the OLPC. Maybe some sort of ultra-cheap non-expandable motherboard with an integrated 386-like CPU, a solid-state HD of 128MB and with a 3 inch screen, or something, just to run a simplified Word application and a lynx-based browser.
The only way that 3% of the richest people in any given population would be mainstream, is when the average discrepancy (of money/income) between the poorest and the richest people would be marginal when measured at the fifth percentile of that population curve, and thus one has a population where the vast majority of the people is equally rich. It is higly unlikely that 50% (in numbers) of the populace would be within the 3% of the richest percentile (in money).
Even communism didn't achieve that, and capitalism certainly didn't. Even populations with a big middle-class have an average discrepancy that is hundreds of percentages wide. In fact, I never heard of any society like that. When we look at 'The Structure of Social Stratification in the United States' we see that the upper class (with a networth of more then $5.000.000 for an individual) is estimated between 4-6% of the populace (in numbers). This is orders of magnitudes more then the rest of the populace at the fifth percentile. So, no, they are NOT mainstream, and no, I do not know 4-5 multi-milionaires fairly well, let alone the name of their dog.
In more socialised countries (like in europe) it may include the higher middle class, but in the USA it definately would mean only the upper-class would get the treatement. And the upperclass is by definition not mainstream, nor is it ever a large part of the populace, and thus, most people will not know 4 or 5.
Ofcourse, I don't know the kind of circles you move in, so I can't speak for you, but as a general statement, your argumentation and conclusion was wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
"in which developers create free intellectual property only to have others scoop it up and generate huge amounts of revenue."
It seems SUN wants to 'protect' OSS devls against themselves. I, however, am quite confident that, when OSS developers put their program/code under the GPL (or something) they are aware that others might scoop it up. It's *meant* to be scooped up, after all.
No one (notorious fools exepted) is going to open source a product with the expecation they can prevent others from scooping it up - and when under the GPL, they won't expect to prohibit others from making a buck of it neither. The rules are inherent to the Open Sourcing, after all. If you want to keep it all for yourself, then you choose a proprietary licence.
The notion of Sun that the system will fail because others might use the code is mindboggling stupid and contradicted by all grand OSS projects. If people weren't free to 'scoop up' the code, there wouldn't be an OSS in the first place.
I'm going to sue you because of the terrible trauma you have given me!
No wonder web2 isn't going to last: http://www.verbumvanum.org/shirky/index.html
"some of the things that you think you're right about, you're actually wrong about, and it's valuable to keep that in mind when comparing your own views to others' views."
This is impossible to determine (who's wrong or not) when it remains an opinion/religious view, etc. That's because there is no way in which to prove or disprove such a view, because through its very nature, it surpasses the observable reality, and arguments are not given. (Well, there might be internal incosnsitencies you can point out, but it's perfectly possible to come up with a (internally) consistent worldview/opinion/religion, which is totally untrue anyway.
Simple comparison will not deal with that. There is only one way to objectively come to any conclusion, and this involves:
1)The subject matter is either observable (e.g. there is a possibilty of scientific falsification) or both parties agree to a premise.
2)you agree to use logic and rationality in deducing the value of any argumentation (and agree that arguments are necessary to substantiate any claim)
If those two criteria aren't met, it's essentially impossible to come to any fruitful determination of who's right or wrong.
Most (pure) opinions, ideologies and religions fall short of those requirements, hence you can not determine who's right or wrong - you still can change of opinion ofcourse, but you can't *determine* what's more correct and what not.
"If some guy comes along and starts parading child porn photos in the streets should we allow him to have his way simply because we do not wish to impose our value system on him?"
As the supreme court has said; the reason why a 'freedom of speech' defense doesn't work with childporn is because a child is harmed while making that porn. This overrules the free speech protection. It was quite clear this is not the case for things like virtual childporn, where no real kids are harmed (there was a FA on slashdot about that, some time ago). Ofcourse, even adult porn wouldn't be allowed in the streets like that, because of the numerous 'decency' laws...but really, these are completely arbitrary. If you will go to the middle east, you will notice that the decency laws there are quite different from ours, especially towards women.
In essence, those decency laws ARE a way of imposing the value system of the majority of a populace on the minority of that populace (which may disagree). Real tolerance would encompass the notion that each group may say what they want, as long as it remains speech (even if it goes against the popular vote).
"If a bunch of guys parade around town in KKK outfits with signs "Kill the Jews! Kill the N****rs" shouldn't we have a say about this sort of behavior?"
Yes, you should have a SAY about this sort of behaviour. And indeed, no-one should be able to stop you exercising your right of free speech to say something about it. In the USA, you CAN walk around in KKK outfits, because, though distastful and many (including me) may not agree with their ideology, it's still a form of speech (as long as they don't act on it). In that instance, the USA is far more free than the EU, where immer more draconian laws are past (but the right-wing movements are way bigger then in the USA regardless).
I'm not sure about the 'kill the nigger' though; I thought even the USA had laws against inciting to hatred or violent crimes, but I'm not sure to what degree. I don't know enough of the laws of canada to comment on that specifically.
But, contrary to you, I would applaud Canada if it had such open-minded laws that support free speech to such high degree. I think you, as many others, confuse the content of the message allowed (racism,...) with the fact that it IS allowed. Once you accept that it is 'reasonable' to censor some forms of free speech with which you do not agree, what is someone else to stop from 'reasonably' censor forms of free speech *you* want to use? In any given population that is big enough, you don't have a truelly universal agreement on what is reasonable or not; you will always have dissenting opinions. Why should those dissenting opinions be denied? I think a society shows more greatness by allowing dissenting speech to occur, than to censor it.
I always wonder what would happen if, in my own country, where the far right has already more then 25% of the votes (even - or maybe thanks to - strict laws against racist talk and what not) would ever gain 66%. There is no doubt in my mind, they would immediately censor any 'reasonable' (in their mind) speech, such as those criticising their racism. In short; the more you censor, the more you're actually acting as a facist movement would do. True democracy should encompas true free speech.
Could you explain the link again between TFA and childprostitution in Thailand? I know demagogic emo-appeal is always a good way to get attention on slashdot, but going from possible censorship on youtube to your 'people-selling-their-kids' paragraph is somewhat of a stretch.
In fact, it has nothing to do with it.
Short answer: yes.
Long answer: yes, but the OS should be robust enough to deal with clumsy endusers.
Hold the feminist horses!
Dude(tte), your argumentation is shifting from the technical merrit of copyright to how men are sexist and women don't find it funny.
Whether you call women who have sex for money prostitutes, whores, courtisanes, or business-oportunists, it has little bearing on copyright and the GPL.
Who, you ask? Maybe the state?
See the first link on the list on http://newsbyte.blogspot.com/
Wait untill the next round of tests the Nasa will do; then the gloves really will come off!
With parts bought on eBay, he was sure to win hands down!
While I'm anti-copyright/patents/*IAAs and such, and think a new businessmodel is in order in this cyberage, I do think you make some well-reasoned points. The responding poster was way out of line, and used more at hominem attacks then real counter-arguments.
I do think, as you, that more then one consideration is made when choosing if and where to buy music. In reverse, however, I also think there is more then one consideration for people to decide to pay something to the musician, even if they can get the song for free. Not all people will go 'everything free and get the finger', provided you have the chance. Which is where the internet/financial possibilities lack. They should introduce a sort of pre-paid buying-card for the internet, where pupîls and students and all other folks can easily get their hands on and use. I doubt the pessimistic view of 'nobody will pay' would hold up then. You would have those of the fanbase, which will always support their musicgroup, you would have those that liked a free song so good they consider it worth a small amount (like me), you would have those who want to 'invest' in free stuff they think is interesting (like with freenet, where, even after 7 years with not much to show for, they've managed to pay a full-time developer for the last 4 years by means of private donations), there would be those who like to feel like a mecenas, or to get a higher profile among peers (with a listing of the highest contributers, for instance), etc.
Many considerations are possible for people to actually pay something, even if they don't need to. Ofcourse, many won't, but then again, many don't use itunes for their music neither, but prefer illegal downloads. It might be enough for creators (at least the more good/popular ones) to live from it - provided there is the oportunity, which, even with paypal, is severly limited thusfar.
All in all, legality and all that doesn't concern many people, certainly not the youth and the computer-savvy. Maybe parents and older folks are more prone to that.
The real issue is ease-of-use, I think, just as you said. For most - certainly the older generation - it's far more easy to browse a page with clearly indicated songs and an easy to navigate menustructure (and a good d/l-connection), then to install a bittorrent and search/download it that way.
But still, in my opinion, the MPAA may dissapear without a trace, and I wouldn't shed a tear, because I think they do more harm then good, and are an obstruction between the artist and his public, instead of an asset.
well, certainly, there is harm done (=the killing of a person), but is it the speech that did the harm, or the action?
;-)
I think one can make the case it's the action, because, without the action, no harm would have been done, and the person in question would still be alive. Ofcourse, one could argue that it's only the hitman that has done the action...but as the parent poster said, when you payed the hitman, you've also contributed with an action that goes beyond pure speech, so you also contributed to the harm.
I think one needs a clear definition of speech to begin with, because, if you se speech as an action, and that action leads to harm, then the conclusion is, that speech causes harm. If you don't see it that way, then speech doesn't. On itself, however, it is dificult to argument that speech harms; there is always an extra physical action necessary to cause harm.
(well, I'm not going into the debate of psychological harm
"Speech can not do physical harm, so speech can not be criminal, no matter how repulsive it is."
I notice a fellow-free speech adept? I'm a pro free speech humanistic libertarian myself, but I do have some problems when trying to remain consistent. I'm curious about your ideas about some issues, and the question to you is: is it free speech/expression and should it be allowed or forbidden? (and if possible; why or why not):
- libel/slander
- yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre
- saying/writing something verbatim from someone else
- virtual childporn
- real pornographic images of a minor, but where the minor took the pictures all by himself and of himself and wants to publish it at age 18?
- racist remarks
- books that deny the holocaust
- books/speech that call for illegal action
- literature that describes in detail how to make WMDs.
How would the free society as you view it deal with these topics?
"There is no question that forced online sexual activity -- whether through text, animation, malicious scripts or other means -- is real;"
No, it isn't; it's virtual. There is no such thing as 'forced online sexual activity' since you can't be forced to be or to remain online. Calling this 'rape' is an insult to all real rape-victims. At any moment of that so called 'online rape' you can decide to ban the culprit or even go offline, thereby ending the 'rape'; I would like to see that oportunity to real rape-victims. If this is deemed to be equal to rape, then I guess when I kill someone in a second-life-like world, I can be prosecuted for murder too. Meh.
"Our laws say that an adult subjecting a teenager or child to sexual words, images or suggestions on the internet is preying on their mental and emotional state in a sexual way. Even if you never try to meet the minor in person, and even if you never touch them or expose your naked self to them, it is a crime to attempt to engage sexually with a minor. If it is a criminal offense to sexually abuse a child on the internet, how can we say it is not possible to rape an adult online?"
Well, she has a point there, but only because those laws too aren't really all that logical to begin with. The reason why it is deemed illegal is because it is deemed the adult IS preying on them, not because of the images or words themselves. If it were, then it wouldn't matter whether or not an adult send them, would it? I mean, some people seem to be unaware of how teenagers themselves talk about sex in chatrooms; and it's not that they do not engages in 'sexual words, images and or suggestions'. Sometimes I think I'm living on another planet where prudes think their wishes are real. So, logically, it is untainable that the words or images themselves are harmful, otherwise kids would go in prison for saying sexual things to eachother too (mind you, the USA makes a valiant try in doing so). What is the difference between two 14 years olds sending 'dirty pics' to eachother and one 14 year old and one adult pretending to be a 14y old showing exactly the same pics? Certainly not the pics, which are supposedly doing the damage.
So there is definitely something illogical about this, because, if it's the fact that the other party is an adult, then how can it harm if it isn't noticed he's an adult? The only thing that makes sense is the preying/forcing itself...but then we come back to the first paragraph, and the fact that being forced online or forced in real life is a totally different thing.
"That's not to say I dismiss the trauma a person suffers after being raped online."
Huh? I must be on another planet again. Is the writer from the USA, mayhaps? It's at most a nuisance; ban him or complain to the moderators, and that's that. For gods' sake, if you're traumatised by something that virtually happend to your avatar online, there is something wrong with you to begin with.
"A virtual rape is by definition sudden, explicit and often devastating. If you've never immersed yourself in online life, you might not realize the emotional availability it takes to be a regular member of an internet community. The psychological aspects of relating are magnified because the physical aspects are (mostly) removed."
And here we come to the crux of the matter: people complaining about 'rape' online have a borderline syndrome, where they are unable to see a distinction anymore between their real selves and their online avatars. They have effectively substituted real life for Second Life, and that's why they think rape in Second Life is equal to rape in real life. It's rather pathetic. The only reason why a person would think it is 'devastating' is because he/she can't differentiate anymore between her real life and her avatar. People should get a grip; getting 'raped' or 'killed' online is annoying at most, but it's not happening to you; *you* have not been raped or murdered.
"But in a game, you don't want to lose the long-term investment you've made
Ermm...you DO realise all your analogies are bogus and unvalid, right? Since I think no-one is that daft, I think it's done deliberatly, but I'll spell it out anyway:
1)In all your examples, the actions that were taken by the 'culprits' had an effect on, and were relevant to, the unethical behaviour. It is ridiculous to take irrelevant matters into consideration when adressing unethical behaviour of a company or country. For instance, say in south-Africa, during the apartheid, the electricity-network worked perfectly. Is it reasonable to ask for the removal of that network because it was created by a south-african government who segregated blacks and whites? Can you not support a good working electricity-net without supporting apartheid? That sounds like a... black and white mentality.
2)I doubt the code Reiser wrote has any relevance to his (suspected) murder, and the continuing support of it (or not) will not change anything in that regard. Code is neutral. It doesn't have any ethical implications on itself, and it doesn't have any value in deterring Reiser from (not) commiting murder, and that would have been true even before he murdered his wife (if he has).
3)If works - nomatter what intrinsic value it may have - of people are disregarded because of the actions of their creators - even when it's irrelevant to their behaviour anymore, then there is no end in sight. Plato and a whole plethoria of ancient greek and roman writers (and probably even Leonardo da Vinci and Shakespeare) did it with -18 year-old boys; should we all throw away their work and remove it completely, and all references made to those works? (Or shouldn't we have at least done so when homosexuality was deemed illegal - which was the case even hardly 60 years ago?) Should we throw away all works of people who are responsible for killing people (even mass murder)? Then there goes Karl Marx and Mein Kampf and hundreds of other books. One can only hope Newton or Darwin or Einstein never turn up to have done something ethically repulsive... And what about countries who commited crimes, say, in Iraq? Am I or you supporting their behaviour by drinking Coke? Can you even find a country which didn't do something wrong in their history to spend your tourist-money in? When consequently applied, and the relevance to the actions do not matter, you can't do squad anymore, not even use the internet...which you aparently do.
Your biggest mistake in all this (and people thinking like you) is this: you think because you are using something that is made by people who've done something wrong (which varies in time anyway), that you are supportive of their wrongful actions. This, however, is not true, and is based on irrational knee-jerk feelings, not on rational thoughts and logical consistency.
"then seeking to recreate a "clean" version if the amount of work involved is reasonable."
No, it isn't. In fact, it has nothing to do with reason at all, and you yourself indicated as much; it's about an emotional reaction based on a feeling of distastfulness about the action of a person and projecting that feeling to cover the (non-murderous and neutral) code he created.
Logic or ratio has nothing to do with it.
Then what you got is a low-quality graphing calculator with a bigger display and no guarantee. ;-)
That just *might* be possible, for $10 in India. I think even the people there will have bigger expectations than that for a laptop, though.
" Lots people claibing to libertarian who don't know what a libertarian actually is think this is the case and we need no government. --This is wrong."
True. Lots of people also think libertarians are for ultra-capitalism in an unregulated 'free' market, and oppose any form of welfare by the state, but that isn't true neither. There are actually myriads of subgroups of libertarians, as one can see on wikipedia, for instance: it's not quite that much of a well-defined group. You have right-libertarians, left-libertarians, anarcho-libertarians, objectivists, humanitarian libertarians (which are close to me), green libertarianism, etc.
The basic tenent is the principle of self-ownership (life, liberty, free speech, etc.)...but the specific details of how a society should look with that principle in mind varies wildly, even among libertarians.
But what is sure that the USA (and slowly the EU) is turning into a form of corporatism, where politicians mainly cater to the corporations, not their citizens. To some extend, this has always been true, and I don't think one can prevent it completely... but one sure as hell can put up a fight. The current methods of 'lobbying' in the USA amounts to legal bribery (and corruption). But the real annoying thing is, nobody really cares much about it; if a senator comes up with a proposal to benefit a certain industry, and those industries are found to be a big contributor to said senator, nobody is surprised, and it is accetpted by the US populace as something 'normal'. It's THAT attitude people should change, not fighting the corporations head as if it were the proverbial windmills. Once you make it unnacceptable/illegal to bribe (or call it lobbying with money), you have a much better chance of combating corporatism.
Well, heck, the brain can be seen as a computational device, and as proven in Iraq, it could well be placed in your lap for less then $10 (unless you use really expensive bullits/knifes).
;-)
/læptp/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lap-top] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
That said, for getting a still working prototype in its original casing (where you can give some input and get some output) in your lap, it will probably cost more then $10 - well...I don't know how the prices are in India, actually, but after a few times the $10 will not cover it anymore, and the prototype will become unresponsive.
Seriously though; semantics aside, we all know they didn't meant paper and pen. You are however right in that the Indian government will be swindled again. (Ofcourse, it's quite possible *some* politicians will fare well because of it.)
laptop
-noun a portable, usu. battery-powered microcomputer small enough to rest on the user's lap.
Wish I had 'funny'-modpoints ;-)
Two remarks:
- That would involve a completely new production method based on dirt-cheap (e.g. paper) materials, and being ready for mass production, which is unlikely to happen within two years time. Especially since it would have to work together with mainstream (recycled) electronics.
- That paper-made device would not be new (see the recycled stuff) nor have any of the specifications needed to call it a laptop (rechargable batteries?). What you're describing is rather a second-hand, papier-maché thin-client with awful specs. Even when created no-one would want it, and it certainly wouldn't be a laptop.
"That's also what people have said about the OLPC when it was announced."
Not true, at least not by people knowing something of IT/computers. By the time they proposed their OLPC project, there were already desktops on the market selling at $199 with better specifications (and a HD of 30GB) - though without screen, granted, but a 7,5 inch screen is not very expensive. It is fully in the realm of the possible to create a laptop with less good specifications for $145, and indeed, with mass-production even just under $100. It is impossible, however, to go below the marginal costs of a product (and still remain in business), which, for the OLPC, can be estimated to be around $80-$90 (thus; even with large volumes). The moment they will say that such an OLPC-device with the current specs will be sold for less then 80 bucks, I will call that an impossibilty too, and rightfully so. The only way that would be possible is if *completely* new, dirt cheap production-methods and materials are used, which is doubtful to happen in the next two years (which is the timeframe of the OLPC to be mass-produced and the indian-made one to be developed).
While it is always dangerous to predict long term technological development, especially in IT, I am willing to wager that anything produced for $10 in two years time, will not be worth the name 'laptop'. At most, it will be a worthless PDA-like device, with abhorent specs, probably worse than what I described in my former post - and even then the batteries won't be included. Let's not forget India already tried to make a home-made 'dirt-cheap' computer for $100...and it flopped miserably. And now they're going to make one for $10? Yeah right.
There is NO WAY in which a laptop can cost only $10, unless it is heavily subsidised by the state. Idian labour is cheap, but not THAT cheap (it's more expensive then china, for instance). Mass production will make things cheaper, but not THAT much cheaper (the raw materials and manufacturing still has a bottom price, after all).
If they're ever going to create something that goes below the $20 it would be amazing enough, but even then it would be a (technological) marginal device and completely out of the league with even the OLPC. Maybe some sort of ultra-cheap non-expandable motherboard with an integrated 386-like CPU, a solid-state HD of 128MB and with a 3 inch screen, or something, just to run a simplified Word application and a lynx-based browser.
The only way that 3% of the richest people in any given population would be mainstream, is when the average discrepancy (of money/income) between the poorest and the richest people would be marginal when measured at the fifth percentile of that population curve, and thus one has a population where the vast majority of the people is equally rich. It is higly unlikely that 50% (in numbers) of the populace would be within the 3% of the richest percentile (in money).
Even communism didn't achieve that, and capitalism certainly didn't. Even populations with a big middle-class have an average discrepancy that is hundreds of percentages wide. In fact, I never heard of any society like that. When we look at 'The Structure of Social Stratification in the United States' we see that the upper class (with a networth of more then $5.000.000 for an individual) is estimated between 4-6% of the populace (in numbers). This is orders of magnitudes more then the rest of the populace at the fifth percentile. So, no, they are NOT mainstream, and no, I do not know 4-5 multi-milionaires fairly well, let alone the name of their dog.
In more socialised countries (like in europe) it may include the higher middle class, but in the USA it definately would mean only the upper-class would get the treatement. And the upperclass is by definition not mainstream, nor is it ever a large part of the populace, and thus, most people will not know 4 or 5.
Ofcourse, I don't know the kind of circles you move in, so I can't speak for you, but as a general statement, your argumentation and conclusion was wrong.