"Ice has a nasty habit of melting and breaking up when heated up. Note the word 'warming' in the phrase 'global warming'."
Are you under the impression that temperatures all around the world stay constant unless global warming causes them to go up?
"I'm sure most of us are aware that icebergs exist. Who are you talking to? Who's making such claims? "
Perhaps I should have made my sarcasm more clear.
"Yes, anyone who has experienced an alien anal probe believes in this. "
Perhaps you should have made your sarcasm more clear. At least that is the tone I'm desperately hoping you intended...
"Maybe you should read the article before making such claims. The only reason mentioned in the article is the possibility that the recent storms caused it to break. Even the Slashdot article directly quotes that this does not have to be related to global warming - at all."
I read the article, and am aware it didn't mention global warming. That is why I was mocking the/. summary.
Why would it have anything to do with global warming? Are people really under the impression that icebergs don't naturally exist and are really a product of the evil Bush administration's plan to cause global warming so they can drown the entire West coast?
Its sort of sad when we have to clarify which stories might have to do with global warming and which don't...
No, the tragedy of the commons applies when there is no property, and everything is part of the commons. Hence the name, tragedy of the commons. For instance, one could argue that with regard to the atmosphere. We cannot divide the atmosphere up into private lots, and there is no incentive to keep any of it clean.
I'm not objecting that a link is provided in the summary (in fact there were several other links in there), just it should be to a better source than the Wikipedia. I'm not here to start a flame war against the Wikipedia, as it does have its uses. However, a source you can refer other people to is not one of them. Its really not that much better than posting a link to a google search on a particular topic.
We had a software engineering course in which we divided into groups to design a large software system. We didn't get into the development of it as the course's focus was on the design aspect of software engineering. There was a second course scheduled that would actually develop one of the systems that was designed, but it ended up being canceled due to a lack of enrollment (I would have taken it but I had another course I needed to take in that time slot). But it still ended up being one of the most useful courses I took. Then later I worked with a team in a undergrad research project, which was also very useful.
No more including Wikipedia links in articles. I mean seriously, does anyone out there really need help searching the wikipedia? Please, if you want to give real information on a subject, give a real primary or secondary source. If that means you have to learn how to do some real research, well thats a skill you need to learn at some point anyways.
Well considering virtually everyone has predicted a surge in violence following the verdict, wouldn't that be a blow to Republicans? Besides, what do you want them to do? Suspend world events for a month prior to elections in America just to avoid appearing to tamper with American politics?
And you really are the first one, Republican or Democrat, I have heard complaining of any issue being an "October/November surprise" (including the Foley or Haggard scandals, though to be honest I havn't been following the Haggard issue due to the fact that I don't care about it). In fact, with regard to Foley, those events happened some time ago. The accussations that are flying around are not that it was sprung right before the election, but that the leadership tried to delay it from coming out until after the election. You might want to read the actual stories instead of just glancing over headlines.
Three advantages radio has over devices like mp3 players.
Radio can contain live content. Not everything on the radio is music. There are sports broadcasts, talk radio, news, etc. I can't listen to a live college football game on my mp3 player (ok, I can, but only because mine has a built in radio). You are basically stuck with nothing but recorded music.
You don't have to choose your own content. Yes, you cite the ability to choose your content as an advantage mp3 players have, but the fact is that is often inconvenient. When I am driving down the highway, I can't be playing around with my mp3 palyer looking for a good song. Instead it is much easier to let some DJ pick the music I want. And unless I am sitting at home and connected to the Internet, I have no way to hear something new that is not currently on my player. And since most satellite radio recievers on the market are built in to car stereos, music out of the home is fairly popular.
It has a social aspect. You have a DJ occasionally breaking up the monotony of song after song, you have stations providing a community that likes a certain style of music (even if it is spread out over the nation), and you have a knowledge that there are others out there listening to the exact same you are. Its not you, all alone with a pair of headphones, isolated from the rest of the world. This is important, because music is inheriently social. You are listening to someone else's expressions of the thoughts and feelings.
Which refutes your point that copyright is not a claim of ownership.
"Look, the lawyers who write these laws choose the language they use very carefully, for a reason. They don't call it ownership of the work because it isn't ownership of the work. Conversely, if it were ownership of the work, they would have called it that!"
Because "the work" that you are referring to is an abstract idea. However, when most people talk about "the work", they are reffering to the copyright. And you have still yet to show any legal grounds that it (or anything for that matter) is owned by the public. Remember, your original point?
"Again, neither of these cases have anything whatsoever to do with copyright or property law! They both fall solely under the realm of contract law. Why do you fail to understand this?"
I'm not arguing they fall under copyright law. They could fall under copyright law (or patent law) had the company that produced them chosen that route. But what does it matter? I am merely showing here that ideas can be held onto and protected without laws in place, which is the property you said earlier that makes them eligible for property rights (I still don't get where you get that though).
"Specious! The entire idea of a lock or safe serves to prove my point -- they exist in acknowledgement of the fact that "property" only makes sense if it's kept under the "owner's" control, and their only purpose is to work around that limitation in a physical way! Indeed, the proper way to use them as an example is to say that the key to the lock or safe does need to be kept in the owner's posession."
Swing and a miss. My point was that a safe is pretty much useless if you have to keep holding onto it all the time as it is designed to guard items that are left unattended. Which, if you believe your own argument, means you cannot possibly own a safe or any physical object like a safe. Which is obviously false, ergo your argument is false via reductio ad absurdum. QED.
"Now you're trying to argue both sides at the same time -- are the stadiums paid for by taxes, or aren't they? You can't have it both ways (and still support your argument, at least)!"
What, you've never been to a baseball or football game? You have to pay for the tickets. Those tickets sales do not go to its construction, but straight to the owners (who had told the desperate city that they would move the team if they didn't buy them a new expensive ballpark just for their team).
"Perhaps, since "entire thread" includes your initial post as well. "
Because I thought I was arguing against someone who had a point. However, if your posts are entirely pointless as you are now indicating, I will stop.
Unfortunately, often the options really don't go beyond IE and Firefox, in fact we are often lucky if Firefox is an option in the first place. Blame it on the web developer's stubborn refusal to code to standards, the browser developer's stubborn refusal to implement the standards, or the w3's stubborn refusal to come up with timely and satisfactory standards that everyone can use. But in the end, browser compatibility is a pipe dream at best.
I still think that is going to be too much of a pain for people to actually use. After all, most cell phones also can be locked, yet how many people bother with them? But I guess at the end of the day, as I said in the beginning, that could be good for Apple's business.
I thought about that, but unless they add a keyboard to the ipod, its going to be a pain to type that in each time you want to download a song.
Now what could work would be a subscription model like the one used by Yahoo/Napster/Rhapsody where you pay something like $20 a month and get unlimited access to however many songs you want. However, Apple has been opposed to such a model since the idea was first floated.
And even better for Apple, the moment one of these gets stolen with a credit card number on it (I'm assuming here that all that information is stored on the device, they are not making the user enter it in each time they buy a song), they will quickly max it out on iTunes music.
I think there is a reason MS decided to go without this for the Zune.
"It's existence is implicit in the idea of copyright. Copyright is literally the "right to copy," which is not the same as a "claim of ownership.""
Do I need to post a link to chapter 2 of the federal copyright law again?
"The difference is that at least with physical objects, keeping constant physical control can theoretically be done. In contrast, keeping physical control over an idea makes absolutely no sense."
Again, I've given an example of a situation where keeping control over ideas is not only possible but commonly done with trade secrets. Internally used software is another example.
"Besides, the kind of object you're talking about would be the exceptional case (speaking of which, could you give an example?)."
Well a safe or lock doesn't really have a purpose if it is kept on a person. A car is useless if you can never leave it (sure it can take you places, but if you stay within it you can't do anything anywhere). But pretty much any object larger than what can fit in one's pocket really can't be kept on a person and not do more harm that good.
"Welfare is a service, sports stadiums are part of the commons (just like all other infrastructure), and pork can be either, depending on what in particular it is."
Not to those paying for it, no its not since those who use it must pay for tickets (commons, at least the way the term is generally used, refers to things which cannot be divided up and paid for by those who use them), and very rarely.
"It seems to me that your underlying argument is that these things shouldn't count because they don't benefit each citizen equally. To an extent, I agree -- this is one of the flaws in our government. However, it's also valid to argue that the process of wealth redistribution itself is a form of regulating the commons."
I am not making an argument over what the government should or should not do with tax dollars. My opinions on that really are not relevant here. What I am arguing is that your view of the tax system is not accurate, and the fact that the government is allowed to take something away from someone does not mean what they took was never truely property in the first place.
"No, trying to use an accusation of hypocrisy as evidence to support your position is a logical fallacy. Simply stating it as an aside is not."
So you are saying your entire thread of posts are a pointless offtopic distraction from the issue at hand?
"No, I'm not talking about the physical media. There are three things here: the (virtual) deed of permission to distribute (i.e., the copyright), the media the thing is printed on, and the actual creative expression itself."
Ok, if you make up a new entity to represent an abstract idea, you can claim pretty much anything you want about it. But there is no legal grounds to say it it owned by the public (or anyone for that matter). And it certainly is not what people are talking about when they claim they own IP.
"No, you can't, because an idea has no value until you give it away by telling someone else about it."
Are you saying trade secrets have no value? Yes, many things (such as music or movies) have little value if you have to keep it secret, but many physical objects which you claim you can defend are the same way. They simply are not useful if you have to constantly keep constant physical control over them.
"No, those were just examples."
Unfortunately since I claimed the existance of things taxes pay for that are not services (welfare, sports stadiums, pork in general, etc.), you pointing out the existence of things paid for by taxes that are services is not enough to prove your point. You have to establish that everything that gets taxpayers money is either a service or part of the commons.
"Pointing out hypocrisy is childish? I wasn't trying to defend the study, you know; I was just pointing out that you (in the general sense) have no right to complain about it when you do the same thing."
Well since I in particular was the one who posted the origional post, you would have to show that what I in particular said was hypocritical in order to show any hypocracy. Other hypothetical people completely outside of this conversation doing the same thing I am complaining about is not hypocracy.
And since you asked, yes, arguing that your opponent is a hypocrite is fairly childish. Its a form of the argumentum ad hominem fallacy.
No, I don't think that it is that easy at all. Yes, their current policy would tell them to remove it, but I would think that should the circumstances come up that require them (under their current policy) to remove it they may well reevaluate their policy. Thats not Google bashing, especially considering the exact same scenario could come up with virtually any company. Its a continuation of the discussion of how blogs should be treated in a world in which different nations are going to have different laws regarding what can be posted.
"I see a lot of references to "ownership of the copyright," but nothing at all about "ownership of the work itself.""
You mean ownership of the physical CD? No, they do not neccessarily retain ownership of the CDs or DVDs or whatever holds the work. But thats not what they mean when the RIAA/MPAA/BSA/Whoever talk about people stealing their property (you original point). And those CDs/DVDs/Whatever certainly do not belong to the public themselves.
"You're making a circular argument -- using the law to justify the law."
I wasn't trying to justify anything in that statement.
"What I was saying was that in the absence of any existing property law, the fact that I'm holding something gives me a claim to it."
How? In that it is harder to take it from you (though that depends on the relative physical strengths of you and the person trying to take it)? Well if your argument is that in an anarchic state you can defend your physical property, and that property magically (or for some other reason you make up) makes it eligible for property rights once the state comes rolling in, then IP is also eligible. I can defend intellectual property as well. In fact many corporations do defend intellectual property they come up with in the form of trade secrets which they decide to keep to themselves (the IP equivilent of holding on to it).
"When the government collects taxes, it's because it provided services. When the government takes property via eminent domain, it's required to pay "due compensation.""
Again, no this is not how the tax system works (at least not in America). Is it your belief that Bill Gates recieves more services from the government than me? Because he certainly pays a hell of a lot more in taxes. If taxes were merely "due compensation for services", Gates should actually have to pay less than a welfare mom.
"Last I heard, the government doesn't pay the copyright holder anything when copyright expires, so the only way to reconcile that with eminent domain is to come to the conclusion that copyrighted works are not property."
Well I also don't get anything back from the government the moment I pay my taxes. If you insist on this "payments for past services" model, then consider the government's reclaiming of intellectual property payment for all the work it did in the past protecting the work.
"Let's see: defense, healthcare, social security... nope, none of those could be considered services! And infrastructure certainly isn't part of the commons, no sirree!"
Are you seriously under the belief that this is all taxes pay for?
BTW, I (like most Americans) don't get healthcare from the government.
"Check your reading comprehension skills. I never claimed "the started it," I only claimed "they also do it." In other words, I was only pointing out that it's hypocritical of you to complain about me, when you do the same thing yourself."
Well yes, I was mocking your origional statement, not quoting it. But anyways, "they do it too" is also childish. Better?
"Fine. In that case, you should also check the dictionary, because "cartel" accurately describes the RIAA, MPAA, and BSA, "propaganda" accurately describes things like "Don't Copy that Floppy," and "disinformation" accurately describes RIAA-funded studies with dubious methods and misleading conclusions. If you object to the use of those words (and you did, in your previous post), than I have the equal right to object to your use of "piracy" and "stealing!""
I objected to "cartel" and "propaganda" based on their connotations. You were disputing their definitions. There is a big difference. And I objected to the "misinformation" claim due to the fact that it is completely unsubstantiated (at least in this 'article').
"Provide evidence to back up your assertion. I cited the US Constitution; what have you got?"
Citing the Constitution doesn't do squat if your citation doesn't prove what you are claiming. As for my evidence, check out the actual law.
"And the physical fact that if I'm holding something, you'd have to take it away from me in order to hold it yourself doesn't factor into it at all, right?"
Right. If you had no claim of ownership over it, I wouldn't be breaking the law if I took it from you (barring any other law like assult that I would have to break in order to take it). It may be mean of me to take it from you, but not illegal.
"Taxes are fees for services rendered. The only reason they are compulsory is that you can't physically opt out of receiving their benefit, since they involve preserving the commons."
I'm sorry, where have you refuted that the government cannot take property from someone? The fact that they only do so when they have good reason doesn't refute it, in fact it proves it.
And no, that is not how taxes work. Much of what taxes fund are services nor are they involved in anything that could be considered part of the commons.
"Funny, I don't recall writing anything childish at all, let alone that in particular."
"They started it" arguments are pretty much the definition of childish when it comes to debates.
Actually, check the dictionary. Piracy is not limited to Blackbeard and friends robbing Spanish ships at sea, and stealing is not limited to taking physical property. As to who owns it, no, it belongs to the copyright holder. The fact that the goal of copyright is to benefit society is irrelevant to its ownership, especially when you consider that such a justification was used for most property laws (read Adam Smith). And the government can be justified in taking physical property (or do you run and hide under a rock every April), so that point is not valid either.
But anyways, we are not talking about the RIAA, MPAA, and BSA here. We are talking about this particular story. Please come up with something less childish than "well they are booger faces" next time.
Drugs, by a wide margin. The only mentions of piracy I ever hear are in infomercials at the beginning of movies asking people not to pirate them, and an occasional news story about some kid getting sued by a record company (there was a little more back when Napster was in the news, but not much more). Sure, there are also weekly/. stories complaining about how we have to pay $9.99 for a CD, but I don't think those really count.
Mentions of the "music, movie, and software cartels", "dis- and misinformation propaganda campaigns", and attempts to "dragoon entire governments and police forces into acting as industry enforcers". No, I don't see any bias in this story. Clearly this was written with the full intent of being a serious objective look into the topic of piracy.
Seriously though, when has any of these organizations (no, I'm sorry, "cartels") ever claimed that piracy was the "Number One problem for the world"? Or even something remotely close to that? Can we stop posting random rants by kids sitting in their parent's basement as news?
"Well, actually, 31 states and the District of Columbia have enacted statutes that enable journalists to keep their sources confidential and most of the rest have provided common law equivalents."
And that has what effect on the federal courts that were the subject of the quote? Or do you need a lesson on Federalism?
"The ability of journalists to keep their sources confidential is absolutely essential to a 'free' press since journalists rely for their information on people telling them 'secret' things and a lot of people (for their own protection) will not tell the 'secret' thing they know to a journalist if the journalist is going to tell everyone who it was that told them."
Except then they have no credibility. If no one will stand by it, for all we know the quote migh as well have been made completely up. And the temptation to rely on anonymous sources just pushes more journalists and potential sources to use them more and more.
"You seem to be confused about the difference between an 'anonymous source' (which journalists do not use) and a 'confidential source' which journalists use frequently."
Different people may of course classify them differently, and if it makes you feel better you can refer to sources whose identity is not revealed as confidential sources. I've heard them referred to as both, including by people within the field of journalism.
"
The famous 'deep throat' source who revealed a lot of information to journalists about illegal activities going on in the Nixon administration during the watergate scandal was not an 'anonymous source' but was a 'confidential source' who years later was revealed to be a high official with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. If journalists did not protect the confidentiality of their sources, there would have been no 'deep throat' source and Nixon would have served as president until 1976."
A) As I said, Woodward and Bernstein did not rely on information from Deep Throat, they used it to seek out independent confirmation.
B) There was no federal journalism shield law back then either, which sort of renders your whole point moot. Felt was willing to speak to reporters even though he knew they had no legal protection to keep his identity secret.
Sure, but obviously the previous poster was responding to the/. article (this is where he posted), not the report by Reporters Without Borders. And if you want to complain about the chosen title for the/. article, I stand by my previous comment. Slashdot is based in the US, the US ranking matters a lot more to them than the French or Turkmenistan rankings. It doesn't mean they don't care about those countries, it merely means they care about their homeland more.
Why do foreign slashdotters (and yes, I am considering you foreigners since/. is based in the US) get so upset whenever a US based story is posted?
The US was clearly the focus of the/. article ("US Slips Again In Freedom of the Press Ranking") for obvious reasons. The US is the home of both/. and the majority of its readers, so what happens here is important to us. That doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't exist, or that the submitter or the poster of the previous comment can't see beyond the US border. It means they find what happens in their backyard important.
Slashdot Mirror
You know what else alters ice distribution around the poles? The fact that it is summer in the southern hemisphere.
"Ice has a nasty habit of melting and breaking up when heated up. Note the word 'warming' in the phrase 'global warming'."
Are you under the impression that temperatures all around the world stay constant unless global warming causes them to go up?
"I'm sure most of us are aware that icebergs exist. Who are you talking to? Who's making such claims? "
Perhaps I should have made my sarcasm more clear.
"Yes, anyone who has experienced an alien anal probe believes in this. "
Perhaps you should have made your sarcasm more clear. At least that is the tone I'm desperately hoping you intended...
"Maybe you should read the article before making such claims. The only reason mentioned in the article is the possibility that the recent storms caused it to break. Even the Slashdot article directly quotes that this does not have to be related to global warming - at all."
I read the article, and am aware it didn't mention global warming. That is why I was mocking the /. summary.
Why would it have anything to do with global warming? Are people really under the impression that icebergs don't naturally exist and are really a product of the evil Bush administration's plan to cause global warming so they can drown the entire West coast?
Its sort of sad when we have to clarify which stories might have to do with global warming and which don't...
No, the tragedy of the commons applies when there is no property, and everything is part of the commons. Hence the name, tragedy of the commons. For instance, one could argue that with regard to the atmosphere. We cannot divide the atmosphere up into private lots, and there is no incentive to keep any of it clean.
I'm not objecting that a link is provided in the summary (in fact there were several other links in there), just it should be to a better source than the Wikipedia. I'm not here to start a flame war against the Wikipedia, as it does have its uses. However, a source you can refer other people to is not one of them. Its really not that much better than posting a link to a google search on a particular topic.
We had a software engineering course in which we divided into groups to design a large software system. We didn't get into the development of it as the course's focus was on the design aspect of software engineering. There was a second course scheduled that would actually develop one of the systems that was designed, but it ended up being canceled due to a lack of enrollment (I would have taken it but I had another course I needed to take in that time slot). But it still ended up being one of the most useful courses I took. Then later I worked with a team in a undergrad research project, which was also very useful.
No more including Wikipedia links in articles. I mean seriously, does anyone out there really need help searching the wikipedia? Please, if you want to give real information on a subject, give a real primary or secondary source. If that means you have to learn how to do some real research, well thats a skill you need to learn at some point anyways.
Well considering virtually everyone has predicted a surge in violence following the verdict, wouldn't that be a blow to Republicans? Besides, what do you want them to do? Suspend world events for a month prior to elections in America just to avoid appearing to tamper with American politics?
And you really are the first one, Republican or Democrat, I have heard complaining of any issue being an "October/November surprise" (including the Foley or Haggard scandals, though to be honest I havn't been following the Haggard issue due to the fact that I don't care about it). In fact, with regard to Foley, those events happened some time ago. The accussations that are flying around are not that it was sprung right before the election, but that the leadership tried to delay it from coming out until after the election. You might want to read the actual stories instead of just glancing over headlines.
""Of copyright," not "of the creative work.""
Which refutes your point that copyright is not a claim of ownership.
"Look, the lawyers who write these laws choose the language they use very carefully, for a reason. They don't call it ownership of the work because it isn't ownership of the work. Conversely, if it were ownership of the work, they would have called it that!"
Because "the work" that you are referring to is an abstract idea. However, when most people talk about "the work", they are reffering to the copyright. And you have still yet to show any legal grounds that it (or anything for that matter) is owned by the public. Remember, your original point?
"Again, neither of these cases have anything whatsoever to do with copyright or property law! They both fall solely under the realm of contract law. Why do you fail to understand this?"
I'm not arguing they fall under copyright law. They could fall under copyright law (or patent law) had the company that produced them chosen that route. But what does it matter? I am merely showing here that ideas can be held onto and protected without laws in place, which is the property you said earlier that makes them eligible for property rights (I still don't get where you get that though).
"Specious! The entire idea of a lock or safe serves to prove my point -- they exist in acknowledgement of the fact that "property" only makes sense if it's kept under the "owner's" control, and their only purpose is to work around that limitation in a physical way! Indeed, the proper way to use them as an example is to say that the key to the lock or safe does need to be kept in the owner's posession."
Swing and a miss. My point was that a safe is pretty much useless if you have to keep holding onto it all the time as it is designed to guard items that are left unattended. Which, if you believe your own argument, means you cannot possibly own a safe or any physical object like a safe. Which is obviously false, ergo your argument is false via reductio ad absurdum. QED.
"Now you're trying to argue both sides at the same time -- are the stadiums paid for by taxes, or aren't they? You can't have it both ways (and still support your argument, at least)!"
What, you've never been to a baseball or football game? You have to pay for the tickets. Those tickets sales do not go to its construction, but straight to the owners (who had told the desperate city that they would move the team if they didn't buy them a new expensive ballpark just for their team).
"Perhaps, since "entire thread" includes your initial post as well. "
Because I thought I was arguing against someone who had a point. However, if your posts are entirely pointless as you are now indicating, I will stop.
Unfortunately, often the options really don't go beyond IE and Firefox, in fact we are often lucky if Firefox is an option in the first place. Blame it on the web developer's stubborn refusal to code to standards, the browser developer's stubborn refusal to implement the standards, or the w3's stubborn refusal to come up with timely and satisfactory standards that everyone can use. But in the end, browser compatibility is a pipe dream at best.
I still think that is going to be too much of a pain for people to actually use. After all, most cell phones also can be locked, yet how many people bother with them? But I guess at the end of the day, as I said in the beginning, that could be good for Apple's business.
I thought about that, but unless they add a keyboard to the ipod, its going to be a pain to type that in each time you want to download a song.
Now what could work would be a subscription model like the one used by Yahoo/Napster/Rhapsody where you pay something like $20 a month and get unlimited access to however many songs you want. However, Apple has been opposed to such a model since the idea was first floated.
And even better for Apple, the moment one of these gets stolen with a credit card number on it (I'm assuming here that all that information is stored on the device, they are not making the user enter it in each time they buy a song), they will quickly max it out on iTunes music.
I think there is a reason MS decided to go without this for the Zune.
"It's existence is implicit in the idea of copyright. Copyright is literally the "right to copy," which is not the same as a "claim of ownership.""
Do I need to post a link to chapter 2 of the federal copyright law again?
"The difference is that at least with physical objects, keeping constant physical control can theoretically be done. In contrast, keeping physical control over an idea makes absolutely no sense."
Again, I've given an example of a situation where keeping control over ideas is not only possible but commonly done with trade secrets. Internally used software is another example.
"Besides, the kind of object you're talking about would be the exceptional case (speaking of which, could you give an example?)."
Well a safe or lock doesn't really have a purpose if it is kept on a person. A car is useless if you can never leave it (sure it can take you places, but if you stay within it you can't do anything anywhere). But pretty much any object larger than what can fit in one's pocket really can't be kept on a person and not do more harm that good.
"Welfare is a service, sports stadiums are part of the commons (just like all other infrastructure), and pork can be either, depending on what in particular it is."
Not to those paying for it, no its not since those who use it must pay for tickets (commons, at least the way the term is generally used, refers to things which cannot be divided up and paid for by those who use them), and very rarely.
"It seems to me that your underlying argument is that these things shouldn't count because they don't benefit each citizen equally. To an extent, I agree -- this is one of the flaws in our government. However, it's also valid to argue that the process of wealth redistribution itself is a form of regulating the commons."
I am not making an argument over what the government should or should not do with tax dollars. My opinions on that really are not relevant here. What I am arguing is that your view of the tax system is not accurate, and the fact that the government is allowed to take something away from someone does not mean what they took was never truely property in the first place.
"No, trying to use an accusation of hypocrisy as evidence to support your position is a logical fallacy. Simply stating it as an aside is not."
So you are saying your entire thread of posts are a pointless offtopic distraction from the issue at hand?
"No, I'm not talking about the physical media. There are three things here: the (virtual) deed of permission to distribute (i.e., the copyright), the media the thing is printed on, and the actual creative expression itself."
Ok, if you make up a new entity to represent an abstract idea, you can claim pretty much anything you want about it. But there is no legal grounds to say it it owned by the public (or anyone for that matter). And it certainly is not what people are talking about when they claim they own IP.
"No, you can't, because an idea has no value until you give it away by telling someone else about it."
Are you saying trade secrets have no value? Yes, many things (such as music or movies) have little value if you have to keep it secret, but many physical objects which you claim you can defend are the same way. They simply are not useful if you have to constantly keep constant physical control over them.
"No, those were just examples."
Unfortunately since I claimed the existance of things taxes pay for that are not services (welfare, sports stadiums, pork in general, etc.), you pointing out the existence of things paid for by taxes that are services is not enough to prove your point. You have to establish that everything that gets taxpayers money is either a service or part of the commons.
"Pointing out hypocrisy is childish? I wasn't trying to defend the study, you know; I was just pointing out that you (in the general sense) have no right to complain about it when you do the same thing."
Well since I in particular was the one who posted the origional post, you would have to show that what I in particular said was hypocritical in order to show any hypocracy. Other hypothetical people completely outside of this conversation doing the same thing I am complaining about is not hypocracy.
And since you asked, yes, arguing that your opponent is a hypocrite is fairly childish. Its a form of the argumentum ad hominem fallacy.
No, I don't think that it is that easy at all. Yes, their current policy would tell them to remove it, but I would think that should the circumstances come up that require them (under their current policy) to remove it they may well reevaluate their policy. Thats not Google bashing, especially considering the exact same scenario could come up with virtually any company. Its a continuation of the discussion of how blogs should be treated in a world in which different nations are going to have different laws regarding what can be posted.
"I see a lot of references to "ownership of the copyright," but nothing at all about "ownership of the work itself.""
You mean ownership of the physical CD? No, they do not neccessarily retain ownership of the CDs or DVDs or whatever holds the work. But thats not what they mean when the RIAA/MPAA/BSA/Whoever talk about people stealing their property (you original point). And those CDs/DVDs/Whatever certainly do not belong to the public themselves.
"You're making a circular argument -- using the law to justify the law."
I wasn't trying to justify anything in that statement.
"What I was saying was that in the absence of any existing property law, the fact that I'm holding something gives me a claim to it."
How? In that it is harder to take it from you (though that depends on the relative physical strengths of you and the person trying to take it)? Well if your argument is that in an anarchic state you can defend your physical property, and that property magically (or for some other reason you make up) makes it eligible for property rights once the state comes rolling in, then IP is also eligible. I can defend intellectual property as well. In fact many corporations do defend intellectual property they come up with in the form of trade secrets which they decide to keep to themselves (the IP equivilent of holding on to it).
"When the government collects taxes, it's because it provided services. When the government takes property via eminent domain, it's required to pay "due compensation.""
Again, no this is not how the tax system works (at least not in America). Is it your belief that Bill Gates recieves more services from the government than me? Because he certainly pays a hell of a lot more in taxes. If taxes were merely "due compensation for services", Gates should actually have to pay less than a welfare mom.
"Last I heard, the government doesn't pay the copyright holder anything when copyright expires, so the only way to reconcile that with eminent domain is to come to the conclusion that copyrighted works are not property."
Well I also don't get anything back from the government the moment I pay my taxes. If you insist on this "payments for past services" model, then consider the government's reclaiming of intellectual property payment for all the work it did in the past protecting the work.
"Let's see: defense, healthcare, social security... nope, none of those could be considered services! And infrastructure certainly isn't part of the commons, no sirree!"
Are you seriously under the belief that this is all taxes pay for?
BTW, I (like most Americans) don't get healthcare from the government.
"Check your reading comprehension skills. I never claimed "the started it," I only claimed "they also do it." In other words, I was only pointing out that it's hypocritical of you to complain about me, when you do the same thing yourself."
Well yes, I was mocking your origional statement, not quoting it. But anyways, "they do it too" is also childish. Better?
"Fine. In that case, you should also check the dictionary, because "cartel" accurately describes the RIAA, MPAA, and BSA, "propaganda" accurately describes things like "Don't Copy that Floppy," and "disinformation" accurately describes RIAA-funded studies with dubious methods and misleading conclusions. If you object to the use of those words (and you did, in your previous post), than I have the equal right to object to your use of "piracy" and "stealing!""
I objected to "cartel" and "propaganda" based on their connotations. You were disputing their definitions. There is a big difference. And I objected to the "misinformation" claim due to the fact that it is completely unsubstantiated (at least in this 'article').
"Provide evidence to back up your assertion. I cited the US Constitution; what have you got?"
Citing the Constitution doesn't do squat if your citation doesn't prove what you are claiming. As for my evidence, check out the actual law.
"And the physical fact that if I'm holding something, you'd have to take it away from me in order to hold it yourself doesn't factor into it at all, right?"
Right. If you had no claim of ownership over it, I wouldn't be breaking the law if I took it from you (barring any other law like assult that I would have to break in order to take it). It may be mean of me to take it from you, but not illegal.
"Taxes are fees for services rendered. The only reason they are compulsory is that you can't physically opt out of receiving their benefit, since they involve preserving the commons."
I'm sorry, where have you refuted that the government cannot take property from someone? The fact that they only do so when they have good reason doesn't refute it, in fact it proves it.
And no, that is not how taxes work. Much of what taxes fund are services nor are they involved in anything that could be considered part of the commons.
"Funny, I don't recall writing anything childish at all, let alone that in particular."
"They started it" arguments are pretty much the definition of childish when it comes to debates.
Actually, check the dictionary. Piracy is not limited to Blackbeard and friends robbing Spanish ships at sea, and stealing is not limited to taking physical property. As to who owns it, no, it belongs to the copyright holder. The fact that the goal of copyright is to benefit society is irrelevant to its ownership, especially when you consider that such a justification was used for most property laws (read Adam Smith). And the government can be justified in taking physical property (or do you run and hide under a rock every April), so that point is not valid either.
But anyways, we are not talking about the RIAA, MPAA, and BSA here. We are talking about this particular story. Please come up with something less childish than "well they are booger faces" next time.
Drugs, by a wide margin. The only mentions of piracy I ever hear are in infomercials at the beginning of movies asking people not to pirate them, and an occasional news story about some kid getting sued by a record company (there was a little more back when Napster was in the news, but not much more). Sure, there are also weekly /. stories complaining about how we have to pay $9.99 for a CD, but I don't think those really count.
Mentions of the "music, movie, and software cartels", "dis- and misinformation propaganda campaigns", and attempts to "dragoon entire governments and police forces into acting as industry enforcers". No, I don't see any bias in this story. Clearly this was written with the full intent of being a serious objective look into the topic of piracy.
Seriously though, when has any of these organizations (no, I'm sorry, "cartels") ever claimed that piracy was the "Number One problem for the world"? Or even something remotely close to that? Can we stop posting random rants by kids sitting in their parent's basement as news?
"Well, actually, 31 states and the District of Columbia have enacted statutes that enable journalists to keep their sources confidential and most of the rest have provided common law equivalents."
And that has what effect on the federal courts that were the subject of the quote? Or do you need a lesson on Federalism?
"The ability of journalists to keep their sources confidential is absolutely essential to a 'free' press since journalists rely for their information on people telling them 'secret' things and a lot of people (for their own protection) will not tell the 'secret' thing they know to a journalist if the journalist is going to tell everyone who it was that told them."
Except then they have no credibility. If no one will stand by it, for all we know the quote migh as well have been made completely up. And the temptation to rely on anonymous sources just pushes more journalists and potential sources to use them more and more.
"You seem to be confused about the difference between an 'anonymous source' (which journalists do not use) and a 'confidential source' which journalists use frequently."
Different people may of course classify them differently, and if it makes you feel better you can refer to sources whose identity is not revealed as confidential sources. I've heard them referred to as both, including by people within the field of journalism.
" The famous 'deep throat' source who revealed a lot of information to journalists about illegal activities going on in the Nixon administration during the watergate scandal was not an 'anonymous source' but was a 'confidential source' who years later was revealed to be a high official with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. If journalists did not protect the confidentiality of their sources, there would have been no 'deep throat' source and Nixon would have served as president until 1976."
A) As I said, Woodward and Bernstein did not rely on information from Deep Throat, they used it to seek out independent confirmation.
B) There was no federal journalism shield law back then either, which sort of renders your whole point moot. Felt was willing to speak to reporters even though he knew they had no legal protection to keep his identity secret.
Sure, but obviously the previous poster was responding to the /. article (this is where he posted), not the report by Reporters Without Borders. And if you want to complain about the chosen title for the /. article, I stand by my previous comment. Slashdot is based in the US, the US ranking matters a lot more to them than the French or Turkmenistan rankings. It doesn't mean they don't care about those countries, it merely means they care about their homeland more.
Why do foreign slashdotters (and yes, I am considering you foreigners since /. is based in the US) get so upset whenever a US based story is posted?
The US was clearly the focus of the /. article ("US Slips Again In Freedom of the Press Ranking") for obvious reasons. The US is the home of both /. and the majority of its readers, so what happens here is important to us. That doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't exist, or that the submitter or the poster of the previous comment can't see beyond the US border. It means they find what happens in their backyard important.