Slashdot wants me to think that DRM-protected MP3s downloaded from an official website is somehow going to prevent people from communicating freely unless we form Internet guilds.
Depends upon how you define "communicating" and "guilds". If it is illegal to discuss or share the tools necessary for "fair use", then I suppose covert tightknit groups will form (actually, they already have).
I mean, really...do people think about their own viewpoints before expressing them?
Some more than others.
I just don't see what the big deal is about this
It's about morality and freedom in light of modern copyright law.
but then again, I don't often share the majority hivemind viewpoint.
Is "majority hivemind" redundant? In any case, are you referring to the majority/. hivemind?, or the majority US corporate hivemind?, or the majority world hivemind? Like it or not, you probably share some majority's hivemind viewpoint depending upon the domain and it has little if anything to do with whether that viewpoint is correct or not.
People who pirate music, movies, and software are freeloaders who get bitter when the free ride is taken away.
Unlike those freeloaders who just create new laws to extend their free ride (cf. Disney, et al.).
-- Copyright: it's an optimization problem; maximize progress.
It's kind of a recursive problem, and yet, somehow it always works out.
Wow, I just looked it up -- you spelled "Vizzini" correctly.:)
Dread Pirate Roberts: You guessed wrong.
Vizzini: You only THINK I guessed wrong! - that's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha-ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia", but only slightly less well known is this: "Never go in against a Sicilian, when *death* is on the line.". Hahahahahah. [Vizzini falls over, dead]
That's an interesting point. Does it matter who paid for the show, or simply that the price has been met?
What if the BBC decided to stop charging British citizens for a TV license, and rather simply required the rest of the world, which uses their content, to pay the fee?
Actually, I suppose that would never happen, since the price will rise to what the market can bear... but then again, if the BBC is a government-derived entity, I wonder why everyone wouldn't just vote for such a scenario... though I understand that collective action of any kind, much less political, is quite difficult.
So is the BBC's content licensed under the "public domain" (though restricted only to the British "public")?
Yeah? Tell that to my cable internet provider MediaOne, err... ATT, err... Comcast each of whom sequetially raised rates while decreasing bandwidth over the past 5+ years (started at $35 uncapped). Now they are realistically on par with DSL. So much for competition bringing the price down. Though, I agree that in theory, the price of bandwidth should go down over time.
Of course, like certain tivo content, the current 1-way TV multicast system could be used for high volume distributions rather than traditional 2-way internet bandwidth.
I know I would be willing to pay up to five (Canuck) bucks per new episode of Firefly.
Hear, hear!... well, maybe $1 (US) per show, but I'm willing to wait a month or so to see it. Of course, I'm not entirely sure that media industry believes in the economics of scale.
It would be neat to see Firefly episodes directly supported by its fans. In theory, could per-episode payment encourage higher quality shows? Alas, no one ever said the majority of people enjoy high quality shows, or even share a common sense of what "quality" is.
I told her I was not Christian, and so only knew a little bit about the story, and I thought the question was really unfair. I knew the book we'd read for the class, but that wasn't enough to answer the question.
I agree; that was unfair. That brings to mind several interrelated issues.
When studying certain art or history which makes parallels or statements about a particular religion, where should the line be drawn? e.g. would it have been wrong for the teacher to present certain books of the Bible as evidence for the comparison?
In (public) high school, we studied the book of Job as a literary work but obviously in the context of Judeo-Christianity. However, I never got the impression that it was presented to promote or disparage any religion, but rather simply as an analysis. It's a very interesting book because of how different it is from the other books in the Bible. e.g. many people feel that the openning was added later.
It seems your teacher's basic failure was that she did not teach or indicate or provide what was necessary to answer the questions that she posed. Unfortunately, I have had several teachers who have done that. In fact, one of my university teachers taught us almost nothing compared to what we were tested on.
In fact, math and science are the only subjects I can think of that are innately independent of what most people would consider "religion".
And making such a thing official in schools feels VERY wrong. It's mandatory patriotism - just like in Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia.
I tend to agree. The only redeeming value is that it is so vague as to be practically meaningless... though I do like the "with liberty and justice for all" part:). What does it mean to promise allegiance to a flag and a republic? Are we promising to obey our representatives? Promising to obey laws regardless of their morality? Promising not to change the laws or the government? I don't think any of these apply in an absolute sense, so I'm not sure of the meaning of the pledge or what significance it may have as a contract. In any case, it does not seem binding if it is forced.
Similarly, treason is an interesting crime since it seems to hold loyalty above morality.
the society (global society now) should change in such a way as to make the idea of making black goo unfathomable to even the most wicked individual.
That would be great -- laws should be a last resort and only for important problems. Unfortunately, as you imply, I don't know how that could be reasonably accomplished. I'm not sure what the motivating factors would be. This reminds me of several utopian novels I've read. They seem to rely upon some fundamental and fairly ubiquitous change in society... "all society (everybody) has to do is realize is X, everything else will follow". Perhaps that is the only way to utopia, but I don't know how to get there while preserving our freedoms.
Regarding guns, if the criminals already have guns or can get guns illegally, then it seems reasonable to encourage law-abiding citizens to have guns -- especially if we assume that the criminal percentage is much smaller than the law-abiding percentage.
Unforunately, western corporations, american politicians, muslim and christian fundamentalists don't make me too optimistic.
Wow, those are pretty broad categories. But I understand what you mean. People I disagree with can make me pessimistic too.
Copyright and patents are being applied to software the way farmers might use copyright to prevent "Food Replicators" from solving world hunger.
That's a complicated notion. Through government subsidies, developed nations essentially eliminate industry in the developing nation, creating a seemingly permanent dependence upon a necessity. Consider modern Genetically Modified foods which might parallel "Food Replicators". Even today, certain "starving nations" refuse food, perhaps to protect their health, perhaps to protect their independence.
The "corporations" would love to solve world hunger, as long as they hold a permanent patent or copyright for it and make money off of it (not much, at least per person). I included "copyright", because is replicating / cloning food (creating an exact duplicate) considered copying or design?
Stallman was the only guy that got it all those years ago.
I'd say the framers of the Constitution probably got it right as well... though obviously not regarding software, but rather the more general overridding goal of all copyright.
The GPL can be useful in achieving certain goals, but sometimes it seems that Stallman is advocating that everyone use the GPL. It might be interesting to see how "progress" would be effected if the entire nation were mandated to be GPL under copyright law. Perhaps it would be better than current copyright law, but there might also be a compromise between the two that would better maximize "progress". -- Copyright: it's an optimization problem; maximize progress.
Could be better designed with larger, clearer windows
Hmmm... do larger, clearer windows insulate as well? There might be a trade-off there.
More efficient would be freezers that open upwards (like ice chests)
Yeah, they are a good idea, but bookshelf-style access is usually more convenient than vertical stacking.
or freezers on the bottom (let the heat rise up and keep the 'fridge' compartment warmer than the freezer)
It's late, but I don't think that putting the freezer on the bottom would increase efficiency at all. The AC has to remove every joule of heat to accomplish its target temp, regardless of the ultimate location of the air inside, and I think insulation works pretty well to maintain that distinct temp in each of the fridge and freezer.
Would the cold air still be formed at the top? or use a fan to push it up to the fridge and to aid homogeneity? Could you walk me through a scenario that shows a better efficiency due to this arrangement?
windows that let you see food so that you don't have to let the cold out while you look at the contents
Good idea unless you don't want everyone to see the inside of your fridge all the time... though maybe it could use some of that glass that only turns transparent when a little electricity is applied... though that would make it a bit less efficient. Plus, I think most of the energy might be lost in the actual openning and closing of the door and somewhat less keeping it open.
Somewhat similarly, I once heard of an air current to cover a fridge rather than a normal physical door. Apparently, it was more efficient, since less cold air was lost. It had the same "transparent" problem, plus if the power went out, you're fscked.
Maybe this "air door" idea could be extended to work alongside actual doors (which might also help with ovens)? Though this is significantly more complex and might not even be much more efficient.
and a way of harnessing the waste heat for use in the oven or dishwasher located right next to the fridge.
If placed and timed properly, I think it could help a very little bit in the initial temperature rise for either of those (the dishwasher, by extension any "hot water")... or are you going to recompress it to raise the temp? In any case, I'm not sure it's more efficient.
Actually, that's a good reason for a believer to be in favor of keeping them seperate too - you don't have a guarantee that your particular religion will be the one the government tries to promote in the future - it could be promoting an opposing one.
I agree and support the separation of church and state, basically for the reasons you present.
My current dilemma in this situation is in balancing between government and non-government. e.g. Is everything public under the heading of "government"?
Is prayer in school okay as long as no one is required to participate? I tend to think it should be allowed, but that is probably a slippery slope.
How about the current pledge?
My quick escape from such dilemmas is that the government should not be doing such things but also that it is involved in vastly more areas than it should be (or was intended to be). The government has no other power but law and so it is used to express all our representatives beliefs and morality (even ostensibly non-religious beliefs). They think that for everything somebody thinks is "right" or "wrong", we should create a law to either encourage or punish it.
At the very least, I think that many of these issues should be decided at a more local level, perhaps even outside of government at the family or community level.
It does get a little ugly, though, in the case of children. An adult refusing medical treatment for religious reasons is well within his rights to do so, but a parent making that decision for his child is a trickier situation. I can see both sides of this argument have good points and I'm not sure where I would stand.
I am similarly undecided on this issue. There are obvious cases where invoking religion where medicine could save lives seems wrong or where I think it is moral for members of a society to step in and stop blatant child-abuse.
Then there is the fine line defining religion; e.g. is "religion" simply the sum total of all your beliefs? I posted some thoughts on this to Noren in a similar thread.
e.g. There are scientists who disagree on the effectiveness (cost/benefit) of modern vaccines. Some believe that if you refuse to vaccinate your child, that is a form of child abuse... I think there may even be laws to that effect. As a result, the vaccination issue has become a part of some people's "religion", even though it either may be due to their own analysis or perhaps a divine personal (or group) revelation not to do it (cf. a "personal" God).
You make an excellent argument, and I am reconsidering my position.
Part of my problem is how I define "Christianity" -- i.e. I define it based upon my interpretation of the Bible. e.g. it was the people (Jews) who demanded a king, to the chagrin of God.
However, Christianity is not simply what I call it, but what others have called it throughout history. Hence, as you point out, monarchies and hierarchies were the norm for "Christianity" ever since the Catholic church began.
You're right, I think it would be somewhat misleading to consider that "Christianity" was contrary to its roots all that time, even though I feel that may be the case.
So, while I think the principles of the US are in keeping with Christianity, "Christianity" can have a vague definition that perhaps upon intersection can only define fairly basic morals and is so broad that it is perhaps impossible to definitively show it as a source of derivation for those morals in the US founders.
In fact, I can see how saying that any secular government is based upon any religion can be misleading, despite the relatively ancillary evidence of Christianity surrounding the government process in the lives of the founders.
In summary, my position now is that the US Constitution (by which I am defining the US, as opposed to by the people of the US) is so specific, and "Christianity" is so broad and general when taken over history that the statement that "the US is based upon Christianity" is at best vague, and at worst misleading, as the US was certainly intended to be a secular government.
Thanks for the discussion and for challenging my statements.
Example 1: Atheists don't believe in Love, because they don't believe in God, and God is Love. (Yes, I have actually heard that one. I'm not making it up.)
Example 2: Atheists don't believe the sun exists, because some cultures worshipped the sun as a god, and atheists say they don't believe in any gods existing. Therefore atheism is illogical because it makes you disbelieve in really obvious things like the Sun. (Yes, I've heard that one too.)
LOL! That's funny. I'm sorry you've had to put up with such silliness.
I also try to avoid such illogical statements, and if I've stated such, I appreciate your correction.
e.g. I certainly didn't mean to imply that you don't believe in justice simply because I may define god as justice.
I think we are in agreement on what copyright should be, though I'm not quite sure what you base your reasoning on... e.g. as I base mine on the principle of promoting "progress in science and the useful arts", which allows me to "take away" (or limit) the "rights" of the author because they were really not morally his to begin with (pre-copyright). I am logically guided by maximizing this principle alone.
As you indicate, the waters of morality are quite muddled today regarding copyright, particularly if we judge the current copyright laws to be unfair for the public.
based purely on the fact that many of the people involved were Christian.
I agree. Just because you are Christian does not mean that everything you do is based upon your Christian values... though if what you do is in accordance with your Christian values, then perhaps they were a basis for it. Regarding Germany, I didn't mean to imply that modern Germany is based upon Nazi values, simply because it once was.
Secular things altered the religion more so than the other way around.
In certain respects, I would agree, particularly rather recently... though I suppose that actually depends upon how you separate what is "secular" from "religion". Historically, religion has had a profound impact on government and people's lives. We can point to the atrocities by which some people define "religion" quite easily for evidence of this, but there are also many, perhaps more subtle and pervasive, positives. Today, many people seem to separate the moral principles of a religion from the religion, but at one point they were practically synonymous. Many have long forgotten the days when such principles were not prevalent and the reasoning for them not obvious or agreed upon.
These principles are, of course, not limited to Christianity, but the fact of the vast majority of the founders being Christian and implementing law and practices in keeping with Christianity are a basis for my statement. In addition, I've also read excerpts from several founders which seem to state that their religion is the source of their morality, which in turn, I assume, is the source for the laws they create.
The 'by their creator' part was added in a second draft at the request of other people. It's not from Jefferson's own preferences.
(And the idea of there being a chaplain in congress was also resisted by some founding fathers for precisely the reason that it violated the establishment clause in their minds, but those voices were not a majority, so they backed down.)
Very interesting; that makes sense, being in line with Jefferson's beliefs. Similarly, please note that I am not arguing whether it was right or wrong, but rather that, as you indicate, it was simply the actions of the majority for whom their religion was a big inspiration. Your examples that I quoted do not seem to detract from that point, but rather indicate that there was a minority that disagreed with some of those values (or implementations thereof).
As far as I can tell, you are not advocating against definition drift or variation, but merely against ignorant prejudice. I agree with you that unwarranted prejudice is wrong and should be avoided, though I'm not sure how "god" has any such prejudicial connotations?
Or are you simply referring to the fact that some people take offense at some uses of the word "god"?
As an aside, it's interesting to note that the drift also occurs in the reverse direction. e.g. Some people believe that the word "Christian" (or, actually, the root Greek word) was originally coined to derogatorily refer to the followers of "The Way" (Jesus).
My point is that by the very subjective nature of "god" (whose denotation generally defies proof), you must assume that when one person uses the term "god" it may very well have a slightly different meaning from another. Perhaps the only common meaning is "higher power".
Immaterial; it's their choice to make, they being the copyright holders. Yes, it might be in their best interests to allow end-consumers to do such advertising for them....
Previously, I thought you were arguing that (e.g. in some cases of non-sale) there are times when people are justified in breaking copyright. I thought you also indicated that making copies for yourself or modifying it are reasonable (which also limits copyright).
Now you seem to argue that whether it helps the copyright holder or not is immaterial, only the copyright holder has the moral right to copy.
My question is, if there should be some limitation upon an author's power of copyright, how should that limitation be determined? By what principle?
I think it should be the principle for which copyright was created in the first place. The principles of "fair use" and "limited time" come from somewhere... in a very real sense, they are not infringements upon an author's rights, but rather, the author's copyrights are a limited infringement upon the public's rights, and for a very good reason.
No, that particular theory is based on the premise that the average human being, especially, forgive me, Americans, generally prefers, and often is interested, if not indoctrinated towards, only instant gratification, and not long-term benefit. Cynical, yet amply demonstrated.
Sure, amply demonstrated in those areas where there is an expectation of greed (e.g. most of the capitalistic business world). However, everyone I know tips at restaurants and for certain other services where it is socially expected... how do you explain this?
'I'm not going to distribute changes anyway, so the GPL doesn't apply to me'
Minor FYI: as you indicated, there are ways to break the GPL, but this is not one of them. The GPL only restricts distribution (primarily requiring source code and the same license), not usage. IMHO, the GPL was largely created because modern copyright law was effectively starving the public domain. i.e. the GPL and copyright itself were largely created for a similar purpose, namely to encourage progress and sharing.
There is no difference; people who create, *and want compensation* should be entitled to that compensation.
"should be entitled"? Only by the power of copyright law are they entitled to that compensation (which is control over copying), and it is precisely the bounds of copyright that I am debating. To debate copyright law by appealing to the ethics established under the current copyright law itself is circular logic. So, what are the fundamental principles upon which we should debate copyright law?
Ultimately, though, it needs to be up to the creator. If Britney's record label doesn't want her fans swapping CDs; fine; it would be far more effective of them to protest or boycott than to break the law. Short term gain, however.
You're right, more could be gained in the long term. Of course, coordinating political or economic action is nigh-infinitely more difficult than enforcing your own morality in your own life. Even for obviously good causes it is difficult to organize political or economic action, much less for causes which are complex and have both good and bad aspects (such as copyright).
Allow me to apologize. I fear that some of my statements (particularly in my previous posts) may have been confusing as they were intended to provoke you to think about the morality and reason behind copyright -- that, before copyright, it was moral to copy. These are the extreme statements which may seem to advocate no copyright, which I do not think is best.
Let me summarize my position by clearly stating that I think the idea of copyright is good. But, the implementation of this system must follow a guiding principle, and that principle is not that an author innately owns his dissem
Some believe the flood encompassed the whole Earth as we know it today, while others believe that it encompassed the Earth as they knew it then. Similarly, the two of every animal could not have possibly been global, but might rather have been two of every animal in the area, probably so that Noah wouldn't be generally f*cked after the flood.
There's lots of similar logical escapes that can be used when interpreting the Bible, including sarcasm, hyperbole, idioms, symbolism, punctuation, and general mistranslation.
Regardless of whether it is historically accurate or not, the question is, how does it better our lives today? If it doesn't, then what's the point?
I agree with your analysis (stemming from property law) and most of the cases you pose are considered by many to be "grey areas", so the question becomes, what principle or criteria should we use to draw the line between what is right and what is wrong?
Generally, common sense rules here; my buddy can listen to a CD I'm playing in my living room; broadcasting it at a concert, however, is verboten.
What if by broadcasting it at a concert, more people end up buying the CD for their own use? In fact, the benefits of such broadcasting is the reason behind radio payola. What's more is that I can legally record the radio and play it back whenever I want. This practice hasn't seemed to hindered the creation of music.
In theory, the artist will, ultimately, sell one copy, and the rest will be copies of copies.
That particular theory is based upon the premise that given a choice, no one sees the benefit of rewarding an author for his work or for future potential creations. While certain aspects of our culture promotes this assumption, other aspects, such as tipping or donation, do not. As with certain musicians and waiters, the expectation simply must be established and accepted by society.
One needs, however, to have the option of selling, in some way, the fruits of their labour. Saying that one shouldn't be able to sell their creative works for money is also saying one shouldn't be able to sell their creative works for the satisfaction of creation, and for the fruits of other people's derivations of said work.
I don't quite follow. You could still sell your work if copyright didn't exist, and the satisfaction of creation by definition exists independently from money. Whether many people would pay your prices is what is in question, but there is no guarantee even with copyright that people will buy your creative works. Without copyrights, certain categories of derivatives might even be more plentiful.
In other words, if I can't sell my music, and prosecute people who copy it, you can't GPL your code, and prosecute people who mod it without distributing changes.
Very true. But would that be bad? If so, then why would that be bad?
The history of art and music and the modern Open-Source movement illustrates that people are willing to create without any direct monetary compensation for their creations. They do this as a hobby or they are paid for their time. In fact, as I see it, the entire programming industry is currently being slowly transformed into a service industry by OSS.
A world without copyright is certainly not immoral. In fact, in some sense, it provides more liberty and perhaps even more potential for derivation. So why would we want copyright?
The answer is that progress in the useful arts and sciences has generally been deemed to be good and desirable. There is somehow a loss to society if we do not promote and, ideally, maximize that progress. Copyrights and patents are an attempt to do just that -- they are supposed to encourage creation and, in fact, sharing.
Then, you get into metaproblems; is it wrong of me to copy a CD available only in Japan, when I have no reasonable way of purchasing it? Is it wrong of me to copy material which is no longer available for sale? Is it wrong of me to copy material which is kept artifically out of the market (such as Disney putting it's titles on ten year hiatus)?
Exactly. If it were the moral right of the author to control any copying of his creations, then the answer would be obvious -- never copy and share without permission; he deserves any money that could ever possibly be gleaned from his creation.
This is precisely why it is so important to have the right perspective when analyzing copyright issues. When we do, these problems often melt away in an entirely different direction.
therefore the existence of more favorable-to-your-position language in early versions shouldn't be construed as the 'real' meaning of the amendment- if they'd really wanted the earlier phrasing they'd have kept it.
I agree. Of course, we are relegated the job of interpreting their phrasing. The caselaw I linked to suggested that the current phrasing is actually more vague than the earlier ones. Perhaps this was intentional in order to achieve the necessary support for it (which is not to say that it should be any less binding). Furthermore, assuming they were not hypocritical at the time, we should be able to look at their practices to see what they meant by it.
OT: Being forced to say any pledge is interesting in and of itself.
but if the founding fathers thought of religions in the collective (i.e. "the Christian Religion") then they would have regarded something pertaining to all christian religions as pertaining to "the Christian Religion" and not as allowing a choice of religions.
I agree. At the very least, some of the founders did not consider themselves to be "Christian". Though whether this was because others such as the Anglican or Catholic church did not consider them Christian is debatable. Even today many people believe that if you do not believe in the Trinity, you are not a Christian.
As to religion versus not-religion, my personal definition of the dividing line is faith, which in turn is based on whether the position is about something which is possible to know.
For the most part, I agree, but the extant question is, how do we determine what is "possible to know"? Are there objective criteria for determining or proving what is "possible to know"? As far as I can tell, the "possibility" of knowledge is entirely based upon what theories we choose to employ.
We can get into the Uncertainty Principle to determine what is "knowable" at a fundamental level... not because both position and momentum do not exist precisely, but because the processes required to know one decreases our ability to obtain knowledge of the other.
Hmmm... would your definition mean that Atheism is a religion?
but it's theoretically possible to actually get factual answers.
"Theory" defines what is possible. Theory defines the theorems. Which theories shall we choose? Probably those which historically best map to our Reality. We are probably missing several useful theories which is why we have not been able to roughly determine the nature of "global warming" (or other complex scenarios). We have faith that we will find such theories, because we have found other theories which seem to match to our Reality consistently.
I know some Christians who believe that if God exists, we will find evidence of Him through science. That all "miracles" are science beyond our current understanding. That the acts of God are as temporal as our own and therefore similarly difficult to prove.
if a god (or God) were to appear and demonstrate conclusively his existance, his nature might now be provable- but a belief in this entity would no longer be considered a religion by my definition as it wouldn't require faith, merely observation.)
And if that god subsequently departed, after thousands of years, would it still be a religion? Some people believe that has happened.
There is a grey area which I consider unfortunate, when a Religion makes falsifiable statements...you cite the example of evolution. In my opinion a potentially factual topic such as this should not rightfully be considered a religious area as it is theoretically factual.
I agree, in so much as can be proven. IMHO, this also gets to the unprovability of history. I know Christians who believe in the Big Bang and Human Evolution, that the 6 days of Genesis were God telling a story to Adam and not the time of His actual Creation, that there is no
Please explain how liberty and justice for all provides "a frame of reference relating individuals to...the universe."
Ok. Respect for liberty derives from Justice, so I'll focus on Justice.
While there is the argument that Justice is man made, that would mean that Justice is whatever man deems it to be -- perhaps by majority? Most people would agree that Justice is not determined by majority vote. So how is it determined?
Perhaps there is a perfect Justice that exists independently from man -- it is a natural law of the universe.
Justice is a frame of reference which relates each individual to one another and the universe.
Therefore, getting a full, perfect, 'retail' copy of that song, without giving person X money, is depriving person X of a sale?'
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. In our current legal situation, with the extant expectations of copyright, I agree with you that it is wrong (at some moral level) to deprive someone of a sale that they otherwise would have had. But I thought your original argument was that it was morally "wrong" to copy/share it even if it would not deprive the copyright holder of a sale.
My main point is that the perceived "wrongness" or deprivation in this case comes from the expectations established by copyright which might not be fair, nor serve the purpose for which it was intended.
Doctrine of first sale does state that once you purchase a thing, you can do what you want with that thing, more or less.
It's the "more or less" that I am questioning (actually, just the "less"). How should the "less" be determined? Why must it be "less"? Why do we have copyright that reduces our rights? Let us get back to the reason for it, and ask ourselves if the right to copy is really an innate moral right of authors?
But unlike a digital copy of a song, or a computer game, giving your buddy that book you're finished with results in you being bookless. A subtle point, but an important one.
I agree, it is the key difference between scarce and plentiful items. How about if we parallelize usage? We both read the book at the same time, perhaps by projecting the pages onto a big screen? Or by oration? How about recording that oration? What if everyone agrees to use a program in parallel, but then not use it in the future to serially account for the time it was used in parallel?
I can share my "idea" with you, but once you have it, it is yours to shape and change and share. The only question of morality is if we make an agreement that I will not do certain things based upon that idea (e.g. share it). Copyright currently makes that agreement in proxy for all people for a specific purpose. If that purpose isn't being achieved or the contract is actually unfair, then copyright should be changed.
Subsequently, it becomes morally complex to abide by an unfair contract made in proxy. IMHO, the laws should be changed, not to eliminate copyright, but to better achieve its purpose.
You are being offered something in exchange for something. You are taking the something, without giving the something in exchange.
Not quite. I make the exchange, but then I own it.
Maybe we need a new word/term for it, but it's not right.
How about "copyright infringement"?
'Oh, well, I wouldn't buy it, so it's not like they're losing money.' Maybe so, but nevertheless, you're still getting their product without their consent.
Why should my sharing of something I bought require their consent? In the case you site, the author would observe no negative effect from it. So, in what sense is the author "deprived"?
The answer is that deprivation is based upon expectation, which in this case is copyright law. Of course, simply going against expectation (or even an unfair contract in some cases) is not necessarily theft or immoral.
So then the natural next question is, why does copyright exist? I put forth that it exists for the good of society, and not to protect any "innate rights" of an author to his work after dissemination.
Hence, the "wrongness" of unauthorized copying comes from the proxy legal contract between an author and the people (other authors) that is copyright. If authors did not expect to control each copy of their work, they would not be deprived (cf. a patron / service economy).
Today, the DMCA effectively gives the author the right to control any modification of their product -- you are not allowed to change it. Many people think that this is unfair, but, in point of fact, they would be depriving the author of money if they modified the product themselves rather than purchasing the author's own modified version. What gives you the right to modify someone else's work? The expectation has been established.
Copyright was once just an experiment in treating plentiful goods as scarce goods in order to promote progress in the useful arts and sciences. You probably know how copyright started by restricting book publishers, but now everyone's freedoms must be abridged in order to accomodate copy-right and alter-right.
But what if copyright isn't the best way to accomplish this goal of progress? Or, what if copyright is the best way, but its current implementation is poor or even harmful to progress? How many creations are lost because of the current copyright? (e.g. abandon-ware, potential derivatives, etc).
So the morality of abiding by the expectations of copyright becomes complex if we deem that its terms are not fair. Copying? Modifying? At what point should the author lose artificial control of his disseminated work? 1 year? 5 years? 10 years? 50 years? Does it somehow become more moral to copy or modify as time goes on?
Yesterday it was copyright, and it took a while for people to accept the idea that it is "wrong" to copy and share certain things that they hear or see or own. Today it is modification and "fair use" which became effectively illegal, because supplying consumer demand for modifications should be at the sole discretion of the original author (nay, copyright holder). It is the author's work. Is it the author's right? If not, why shouldn't the author have this right to his own creation?
Honestly, if implemented properly, I think copyright can greatly help in maximizing progress -- especially if the work (including the source code) must be released upon a reasonable expiration. As it stands, however, I'm not sure the current system is better at promoting progress than having no copyright.
"YHBT" You're a glass is half empty kinda guy, aren'tcha?:-)
"YHL" I have not yet begun to fight!... though if he was trolling... hmmmm... I guess you're right... yup, I lost and now I'm replying to an AC who speaks in acronyms.:)
A clarification: I never said Deism is derived from Christianity. I said that in the case of the founding fathers, that THEY got there through that path.
Ah, so all you were saying is that the Deists were originally Christian or that they began with Christianity but did not necessarily take anything from it? Interesting... maybe i'll check out deism.com.
And thus, when something hard to explain is observed, the proper reaction should be to study it and try to figure out the reason behind it, rather than just chalk it up to a miracle and leave it at that.
From my perspective, Christianity says practically nothing about science. It primarily describes history, morality, and even some "best practices". Of course, my interpretation of the Bible might not be the most popular. Often people use the term "miracle" to simply mean "beyond my current understanding", which seems quite scientific. But your point is well taken though, as there are some people who insist upon ignorance and hold forth their leader or religion as an excuse.
No. Are the principles of the modern German government based on Nazism?...
With your examples are you simply arguing that governments change? I do not disagree. e.g. the modern German government is certainly not based on Nazism, though it once was.
The severing of religion from government was quite deliberate, and very much the whole point of the Establishment Clause
I agree entirely. They were persecuted by other Christians for their variant beliefs. I was not asking if you thought the US has a religious government, because they obviously don't (for the exact reason you mentioned). I was trying to ask if you thought that it is fair to say that the morals / philosophy / principles of the US were based upon Christianity?... which seemed reasonable to me since the vast majority of its people were Christian (-like).
But I apologize -- in retrospect, it is a poor question since it is so complex and lacking concrete definitions. Furthermore, as another poster led me to consider, the principles of Christianity are broad by comparison to more immediate influences such as Locke or Voltaire, who themselves may have been Christian or influenced by it.
But that hat temporarily comes off when you enter the halls of government - or at least it's supposed to.
That's the interesting thing... it is my understanding that, perhaps until recently, religion did play a role in governmental processes (prayer, the Bible, etc.) and that the First Amendment was interpreted that no legal power was to be given to any religious authority. Of course, perhaps my impressions of US history are incomplete.
No more so than the Socratic/Platonic philosophy, the Lockean philosophy, the Cartesean philosophy, the philosophy of Voltaire...
I'm not deeply familiar with all of those philosophers, but from what I do know, their works are much more detailed than the Bible (the best source for Christianity I can think of). I have no doubt much US philosophy came from them, as well as other contemporaries.
Actually, I thought at least some of them were Christian (Descartes?, Voltaire?, Locke?)? So I wouldn't be surprised if there was some overlap of their basic principles.
Of course, Christianity itself can be viewed as being founded upon other sources (most notably Judaism). If you want to get into the Catholic (Universal) church, you can probably find influences from everywhere as it was intended to unite all religions under "Christianity".
Jesus of Nazareth was just one of the philosophers with whom the Founding Fathers were familiar, and who influenced their views.
From my understanding, life for most US people back then was highly religious compared to today and the vast majority were Christian (or some rough derivative, depending upon what "Christian" means to you). Again, I think the influence of Christianity was pervasive, but general, e.g. as opposed to the influence of Locke, which was much more specific.
I recall a story told to me about an Israeli. He was asked if he was religious, and he said "no, not at all". Then he was asked if he had ever read the Bible (or perhaps the Torah), and he said, "yes, almost everyday". And subsequently that he generally believed in it. I say this simply to illustrate how differently people can define terms. He probably associates Orthodox Judaism as "religious".
So, after much ado and entirely too much typing which was probably better intended for one of my other posts (sorry), I gratefully accept your correction of me as it was intended: Christianity was not the only influence on US founders.:)
Slashdot Mirror
It's about morality and freedom in light of modern copyright law.Is "majority hivemind" redundant? In any case, are you referring to the majority
--
Copyright: it's an optimization problem; maximize progress.
It's kind of a recursive problem, and yet, somehow it always works out.
:)
Wow, I just looked it up -- you spelled "Vizzini" correctly.
Dread Pirate Roberts: You guessed wrong.
Vizzini: You only THINK I guessed wrong! - that's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha-ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia", but only slightly less well known is this: "Never go in against a Sicilian, when *death* is on the line.". Hahahahahah.
[Vizzini falls over, dead]
That's an interesting point. Does it matter who paid for the show, or simply that the price has been met?
What if the BBC decided to stop charging British citizens for a TV license, and rather simply required the rest of the world, which uses their content, to pay the fee?
Actually, I suppose that would never happen, since the price will rise to what the market can bear... but then again, if the BBC is a government-derived entity, I wonder why everyone wouldn't just vote for such a scenario... though I understand that collective action of any kind, much less political, is quite difficult.
So is the BBC's content licensed under the "public domain" (though restricted only to the British "public")?
Remember that bandwidth costs continue to fall.
Yeah? Tell that to my cable internet provider MediaOne, err... ATT, err... Comcast each of whom sequetially raised rates while decreasing bandwidth over the past 5+ years (started at $35 uncapped). Now they are realistically on par with DSL. So much for competition bringing the price down. Though, I agree that in theory, the price of bandwidth should go down over time.
Of course, like certain tivo content, the current 1-way TV multicast system could be used for high volume distributions rather than traditional 2-way internet bandwidth.
I know I would be willing to pay up to five (Canuck) bucks per new episode of Firefly.
Hear, hear!... well, maybe $1 (US) per show, but I'm willing to wait a month or so to see it. Of course, I'm not entirely sure that media industry believes in the economics of scale.
It would be neat to see Firefly episodes directly supported by its fans. In theory, could per-episode payment encourage higher quality shows? Alas, no one ever said the majority of people enjoy high quality shows, or even share a common sense of what "quality" is.
As long as you are breaking Comcast's rules, then Comcast cannot be held liable for your actions.
I told her I was not Christian, and so only knew a little bit about the story, and I thought the question was really unfair. I knew the book we'd read for the class, but that wasn't enough to answer the question.
:). What does it mean to promise allegiance to a flag and a republic? Are we promising to obey our representatives? Promising to obey laws regardless of their morality? Promising not to change the laws or the government? I don't think any of these apply in an absolute sense, so I'm not sure of the meaning of the pledge or what significance it may have as a contract. In any case, it does not seem binding if it is forced.
I agree; that was unfair. That brings to mind several interrelated issues.
When studying certain art or history which makes parallels or statements about a particular religion, where should the line be drawn? e.g. would it have been wrong for the teacher to present certain books of the Bible as evidence for the comparison?
In (public) high school, we studied the book of Job as a literary work but obviously in the context of Judeo-Christianity. However, I never got the impression that it was presented to promote or disparage any religion, but rather simply as an analysis. It's a very interesting book because of how different it is from the other books in the Bible. e.g. many people feel that the openning was added later.
It seems your teacher's basic failure was that she did not teach or indicate or provide what was necessary to answer the questions that she posed. Unfortunately, I have had several teachers who have done that. In fact, one of my university teachers taught us almost nothing compared to what we were tested on.
In fact, math and science are the only subjects I can think of that are innately independent of what most people would consider "religion".
And making such a thing official in schools feels VERY wrong. It's mandatory patriotism - just like in Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia.
I tend to agree. The only redeeming value is that it is so vague as to be practically meaningless... though I do like the "with liberty and justice for all" part
Similarly, treason is an interesting crime since it seems to hold loyalty above morality.
the society (global society now) should change in such a way as to make the idea of making black goo unfathomable to even the most wicked individual.
That would be great -- laws should be a last resort and only for important problems. Unfortunately, as you imply, I don't know how that could be reasonably accomplished. I'm not sure what the motivating factors would be. This reminds me of several utopian novels I've read. They seem to rely upon some fundamental and fairly ubiquitous change in society... "all society (everybody) has to do is realize is X, everything else will follow". Perhaps that is the only way to utopia, but I don't know how to get there while preserving our freedoms.
Regarding guns, if the criminals already have guns or can get guns illegally, then it seems reasonable to encourage law-abiding citizens to have guns -- especially if we assume that the criminal percentage is much smaller than the law-abiding percentage.
Unforunately, western corporations, american politicians, muslim and christian fundamentalists don't make me too optimistic.
Wow, those are pretty broad categories. But I understand what you mean. People I disagree with can make me pessimistic too.
Copyright and patents are being applied to software the way farmers might use copyright to prevent "Food Replicators" from solving world hunger.
That's a complicated notion. Through government subsidies, developed nations essentially eliminate industry in the developing nation, creating a seemingly permanent dependence upon a necessity. Consider modern Genetically Modified foods which might parallel "Food Replicators". Even today, certain "starving nations" refuse food, perhaps to protect their health, perhaps to protect their independence.
The "corporations" would love to solve world hunger, as long as they hold a permanent patent or copyright for it and make money off of it (not much, at least per person). I included "copyright", because is replicating / cloning food (creating an exact duplicate) considered copying or design?
Stallman was the only guy that got it all those years ago.
I'd say the framers of the Constitution probably got it right as well... though obviously not regarding software, but rather the more general overridding goal of all copyright.
The GPL can be useful in achieving certain goals, but sometimes it seems that Stallman is advocating that everyone use the GPL. It might be interesting to see how "progress" would be effected if the entire nation were mandated to be GPL under copyright law. Perhaps it would be better than current copyright law, but there might also be a compromise between the two that would better maximize "progress".
--
Copyright: it's an optimization problem; maximize progress.
Could be better designed with larger, clearer windows
:)
Hmmm... do larger, clearer windows insulate as well? There might be a trade-off there.
More efficient would be freezers that open upwards (like ice chests)
Yeah, they are a good idea, but bookshelf-style access is usually more convenient than vertical stacking.
or freezers on the bottom (let the heat rise up and keep the 'fridge' compartment warmer than the freezer)
It's late, but I don't think that putting the freezer on the bottom would increase efficiency at all. The AC has to remove every joule of heat to accomplish its target temp, regardless of the ultimate location of the air inside, and I think insulation works pretty well to maintain that distinct temp in each of the fridge and freezer.
Would the cold air still be formed at the top?
or use a fan to push it up to the fridge and to aid homogeneity?
Could you walk me through a scenario that shows a better efficiency due to this arrangement?
windows that let you see food so that you don't have to let the cold out while you look at the contents
Good idea unless you don't want everyone to see the inside of your fridge all the time... though maybe it could use some of that glass that only turns transparent when a little electricity is applied... though that would make it a bit less efficient. Plus, I think most of the energy might be lost in the actual openning and closing of the door and somewhat less keeping it open.
Somewhat similarly, I once heard of an air current to cover a fridge rather than a normal physical door. Apparently, it was more efficient, since less cold air was lost. It had the same "transparent" problem, plus if the power went out, you're fscked.
Maybe this "air door" idea could be extended to work alongside actual doors (which might also help with ovens)? Though this is significantly more complex and might not even be much more efficient.
and a way of harnessing the waste heat for use in the oven or dishwasher located right next to the fridge.
If placed and timed properly, I think it could help a very little bit in the initial temperature rise for either of those (the dishwasher, by extension any "hot water")... or are you going to recompress it to raise the temp? In any case, I'm not sure it's more efficient.
NB: I'm not an expert in any of this.
My current dilemma in this situation is in balancing between government and non-government.
e.g. Is everything public under the heading of "government"?
Is prayer in school okay as long as no one is required to participate? I tend to think it should be allowed, but that is probably a slippery slope.
How about the current pledge?
My quick escape from such dilemmas is that the government should not be doing such things but also that it is involved in vastly more areas than it should be (or was intended to be). The government has no other power but law and so it is used to express all our representatives beliefs and morality (even ostensibly non-religious beliefs). They think that for everything somebody thinks is "right" or "wrong", we should create a law to either encourage or punish it.
At the very least, I think that many of these issues should be decided at a more local level, perhaps even outside of government at the family or community level.I am similarly undecided on this issue. There are obvious cases where invoking religion where medicine could save lives seems wrong or where I think it is moral for members of a society to step in and stop blatant child-abuse.
Then there is the fine line defining religion; e.g. is "religion" simply the sum total of all your beliefs? I posted some thoughts on this to Noren in a similar thread.
e.g. There are scientists who disagree on the effectiveness (cost/benefit) of modern vaccines. Some believe that if you refuse to vaccinate your child, that is a form of child abuse... I think there may even be laws to that effect. As a result, the vaccination issue has become a part of some people's "religion", even though it either may be due to their own analysis or perhaps a divine personal (or group) revelation not to do it (cf. a "personal" God).
You make an excellent argument, and I am reconsidering my position.
Part of my problem is how I define "Christianity" -- i.e. I define it based upon my interpretation of the Bible. e.g. it was the people (Jews) who demanded a king, to the chagrin of God.
However, Christianity is not simply what I call it, but what others have called it throughout history. Hence, as you point out, monarchies and hierarchies were the norm for "Christianity" ever since the Catholic church began.
You're right, I think it would be somewhat misleading to consider that "Christianity" was contrary to its roots all that time, even though I feel that may be the case.
So, while I think the principles of the US are in keeping with Christianity, "Christianity" can have a vague definition that perhaps upon intersection can only define fairly basic morals and is so broad that it is perhaps impossible to definitively show it as a source of derivation for those morals in the US founders.
In fact, I can see how saying that any secular government is based upon any religion can be misleading, despite the relatively ancillary evidence of Christianity surrounding the government process in the lives of the founders.
In summary, my position now is that the US Constitution (by which I am defining the US, as opposed to by the people of the US) is so specific, and "Christianity" is so broad and general when taken over history that the statement that "the US is based upon Christianity" is at best vague, and at worst misleading, as the US was certainly intended to be a secular government.
Thanks for the discussion and for challenging my statements.
I also try to avoid such illogical statements, and if I've stated such, I appreciate your correction.
e.g. I certainly didn't mean to imply that you don't believe in justice simply because I may define god as justice.
I think we are in agreement on what copyright should be, though I'm not quite sure what you base your reasoning on... e.g. as I base mine on the principle of promoting "progress in science and the useful arts", which allows me to "take away" (or limit) the "rights" of the author because they were really not morally his to begin with (pre-copyright). I am logically guided by maximizing this principle alone.
As you indicate, the waters of morality are quite muddled today regarding copyright, particularly if we judge the current copyright laws to be unfair for the public.
These principles are, of course, not limited to Christianity, but the fact of the vast majority of the founders being Christian and implementing law and practices in keeping with Christianity are a basis for my statement. In addition, I've also read excerpts from several founders which seem to state that their religion is the source of their morality, which in turn, I assume, is the source for the laws they create.Very interesting; that makes sense, being in line with Jefferson's beliefs. Similarly, please note that I am not arguing whether it was right or wrong, but rather that, as you indicate, it was simply the actions of the majority for whom their religion was a big inspiration. Your examples that I quoted do not seem to detract from that point, but rather indicate that there was a minority that disagreed with some of those values (or implementations thereof).
As far as I can tell, you are not advocating against definition drift or variation, but merely against ignorant prejudice. I agree with you that unwarranted prejudice is wrong and should be avoided, though I'm not sure how "god" has any such prejudicial connotations?
Or are you simply referring to the fact that some people take offense at some uses of the word "god"?
As an aside, it's interesting to note that the drift also occurs in the reverse direction. e.g. Some people believe that the word "Christian" (or, actually, the root Greek word) was originally coined to derogatorily refer to the followers of "The Way" (Jesus).
My point is that by the very subjective nature of "god" (whose denotation generally defies proof), you must assume that when one person uses the term "god" it may very well have a slightly different meaning from another. Perhaps the only common meaning is "higher power".
Previously, I thought you were arguing that (e.g. in some cases of non-sale) there are times when people are justified in breaking copyright. I thought you also indicated that making copies for yourself or modifying it are reasonable (which also limits copyright).
Now you seem to argue that whether it helps the copyright holder or not is immaterial, only the copyright holder has the moral right to copy.
My question is, if there should be some limitation upon an author's power of copyright, how should that limitation be determined? By what principle?
I think it should be the principle for which copyright was created in the first place. The principles of "fair use" and "limited time" come from somewhere... in a very real sense, they are not infringements upon an author's rights, but rather, the author's copyrights are a limited infringement upon the public's rights, and for a very good reason.
Sure, amply demonstrated in those areas where there is an expectation of greed (e.g. most of the capitalistic business world). However, everyone I know tips at restaurants and for certain other services where it is socially expected... how do you explain this?
Minor FYI: as you indicated, there are ways to break the GPL, but this is not one of them. The GPL only restricts distribution (primarily requiring source code and the same license), not usage. IMHO, the GPL was largely created because modern copyright law was effectively starving the public domain. i.e. the GPL and copyright itself were largely created for a similar purpose, namely to encourage progress and sharing.
"should be entitled"? Only by the power of copyright law are they entitled to that compensation (which is control over copying), and it is precisely the bounds of copyright that I am debating. To debate copyright law by appealing to the ethics established under the current copyright law itself is circular logic. So, what are the fundamental principles upon which we should debate copyright law?
You're right, more could be gained in the long term. Of course, coordinating political or economic action is nigh-infinitely more difficult than enforcing your own morality in your own life. Even for obviously good causes it is difficult to organize political or economic action, much less for causes which are complex and have both good and bad aspects (such as copyright).
Allow me to apologize. I fear that some of my statements (particularly in my previous posts) may have been confusing as they were intended to provoke you to think about the morality and reason behind copyright -- that, before copyright, it was moral to copy. These are the extreme statements which may seem to advocate no copyright, which I do not think is best.
Let me summarize my position by clearly stating that I think the idea of copyright is good. But, the implementation of this system must follow a guiding principle, and that principle is not that an author innately owns his dissem
Some believe the flood encompassed the whole Earth as we know it today, while others believe that it encompassed the Earth as they knew it then. Similarly, the two of every animal could not have possibly been global, but might rather have been two of every animal in the area, probably so that Noah wouldn't be generally f*cked after the flood.
There's lots of similar logical escapes that can be used when interpreting the Bible, including sarcasm, hyperbole, idioms, symbolism, punctuation, and general mistranslation.
Regardless of whether it is historically accurate or not, the question is, how does it better our lives today? If it doesn't, then what's the point?
The history of art and music and the modern Open-Source movement illustrates that people are willing to create without any direct monetary compensation for their creations. They do this as a hobby or they are paid for their time. In fact, as I see it, the entire programming industry is currently being slowly transformed into a service industry by OSS.
A world without copyright is certainly not immoral. In fact, in some sense, it provides more liberty and perhaps even more potential for derivation. So why would we want copyright?
The answer is that progress in the useful arts and sciences has generally been deemed to be good and desirable. There is somehow a loss to society if we do not promote and, ideally, maximize that progress. Copyrights and patents are an attempt to do just that -- they are supposed to encourage creation and, in fact, sharing.Exactly. If it were the moral right of the author to control any copying of his creations, then the answer would be obvious -- never copy and share without permission; he deserves any money that could ever possibly be gleaned from his creation.
This is precisely why it is so important to have the right perspective when analyzing copyright issues. When we do, these problems often melt away in an entirely different direction.
I agree. Of course, we are relegated the job of interpreting their phrasing. The caselaw I linked to suggested that the current phrasing is actually more vague than the earlier ones. Perhaps this was intentional in order to achieve the necessary support for it (which is not to say that it should be any less binding). Furthermore, assuming they were not hypocritical at the time, we should be able to look at their practices to see what they meant by it.
OT: Being forced to say any pledge is interesting in and of itself.
I agree. At the very least, some of the founders did not consider themselves to be "Christian". Though whether this was because others such as the Anglican or Catholic church did not consider them Christian is debatable. Even today many people believe that if you do not believe in the Trinity, you are not a Christian.
For the most part, I agree, but the extant question is, how do we determine what is "possible to know"? Are there objective criteria for determining or proving what is "possible to know"? As far as I can tell, the "possibility" of knowledge is entirely based upon what theories we choose to employ.
We can get into the Uncertainty Principle to determine what is "knowable" at a fundamental level... not because both position and momentum do not exist precisely, but because the processes required to know one decreases our ability to obtain knowledge of the other.
Hmmm... would your definition mean that Atheism is a religion?
"Theory" defines what is possible. Theory defines the theorems. Which theories shall we choose? Probably those which historically best map to our Reality. We are probably missing several useful theories which is why we have not been able to roughly determine the nature of "global warming" (or other complex scenarios). We have faith that we will find such theories, because we have found other theories which seem to match to our Reality consistently.
I know some Christians who believe that if God exists, we will find evidence of Him through science. That all "miracles" are science beyond our current understanding. That the acts of God are as temporal as our own and therefore similarly difficult to prove.
And if that god subsequently departed, after thousands of years, would it still be a religion? Some people believe that has happened.
I agree, in so much as can be proven. IMHO, this also gets to the unprovability of history. I know Christians who believe in the Big Bang and Human Evolution, that the 6 days of Genesis were God telling a story to Adam and not the time of His actual Creation, that there is no
Please explain how liberty and justice for all provides "a frame of reference relating individuals to...the universe."
Ok. Respect for liberty derives from Justice, so I'll focus on Justice.
While there is the argument that Justice is man made, that would mean that Justice is whatever man deems it to be -- perhaps by majority? Most people would agree that Justice is not determined by majority vote. So how is it determined?
Perhaps there is a perfect Justice that exists independently from man -- it is a natural law of the universe.
Justice is a frame of reference which relates each individual to one another and the universe.
Think Karma.
My main point is that the perceived "wrongness" or deprivation in this case comes from the expectations established by copyright which might not be fair, nor serve the purpose for which it was intended.It's the "more or less" that I am questioning (actually, just the "less"). How should the "less" be determined? Why must it be "less"? Why do we have copyright that reduces our rights? Let us get back to the reason for it, and ask ourselves if the right to copy is really an innate moral right of authors?I agree, it is the key difference between scarce and plentiful items. How about if we parallelize usage? We both read the book at the same time, perhaps by projecting the pages onto a big screen? Or by oration? How about recording that oration? What if everyone agrees to use a program in parallel, but then not use it in the future to serially account for the time it was used in parallel?
I can share my "idea" with you, but once you have it, it is yours to shape and change and share. The only question of morality is if we make an agreement that I will not do certain things based upon that idea (e.g. share it). Copyright currently makes that agreement in proxy for all people for a specific purpose. If that purpose isn't being achieved or the contract is actually unfair, then copyright should be changed.
Subsequently, it becomes morally complex to abide by an unfair contract made in proxy. IMHO, the laws should be changed, not to eliminate copyright, but to better achieve its purpose.
The answer is that deprivation is based upon expectation, which in this case is copyright law. Of course, simply going against expectation (or even an unfair contract in some cases) is not necessarily theft or immoral.
So then the natural next question is, why does copyright exist? I put forth that it exists for the good of society, and not to protect any "innate rights" of an author to his work after dissemination.
Hence, the "wrongness" of unauthorized copying comes from the proxy legal contract between an author and the people (other authors) that is copyright. If authors did not expect to control each copy of their work, they would not be deprived (cf. a patron / service economy).
Today, the DMCA effectively gives the author the right to control any modification of their product -- you are not allowed to change it. Many people think that this is unfair, but, in point of fact, they would be depriving the author of money if they modified the product themselves rather than purchasing the author's own modified version. What gives you the right to modify someone else's work? The expectation has been established.
Copyright was once just an experiment in treating plentiful goods as scarce goods in order to promote progress in the useful arts and sciences. You probably know how copyright started by restricting book publishers, but now everyone's freedoms must be abridged in order to accomodate copy-right and alter-right.
But what if copyright isn't the best way to accomplish this goal of progress? Or, what if copyright is the best way, but its current implementation is poor or even harmful to progress? How many creations are lost because of the current copyright? (e.g. abandon-ware, potential derivatives, etc).
So the morality of abiding by the expectations of copyright becomes complex if we deem that its terms are not fair. Copying? Modifying? At what point should the author lose artificial control of his disseminated work? 1 year? 5 years? 10 years? 50 years? Does it somehow become more moral to copy or modify as time goes on?
Yesterday it was copyright, and it took a while for people to accept the idea that it is "wrong" to copy and share certain things that they hear or see or own. Today it is modification and "fair use" which became effectively illegal, because supplying consumer demand for modifications should be at the sole discretion of the original author (nay, copyright holder). It is the author's work. Is it the author's right? If not, why shouldn't the author have this right to his own creation?
Honestly, if implemented properly, I think copyright can greatly help in maximizing progress -- especially if the work (including the source code) must be released upon a reasonable expiration. As it stands, however, I'm not sure the current system is better at promoting progress than having no copyright.
Thanks, I learned a few new acronyms.
:-)
... though if he was trolling... hmmmm... I guess you're right... yup, I lost and now I'm replying to an AC who speaks in acronyms. :)
:o)
"YHBT"
You're a glass is half empty kinda guy, aren'tcha?
"YHL"
I have not yet begun to fight!
"HAND"
You have a nice day too.
A clarification: I never said Deism is derived from Christianity. I said that in the case of the founding fathers, that THEY got there through that path.
...
... which seemed reasonable to me since the vast majority of its people were Christian (-like).
Ah, so all you were saying is that the Deists were originally Christian or that they began with Christianity but did not necessarily take anything from it? Interesting... maybe i'll check out deism.com.
And thus, when something hard to explain is observed, the proper reaction should be to study it and try to figure out the reason behind it, rather than just chalk it up to a miracle and leave it at that.
From my perspective, Christianity says practically nothing about science. It primarily describes history, morality, and even some "best practices". Of course, my interpretation of the Bible might not be the most popular. Often people use the term "miracle" to simply mean "beyond my current understanding", which seems quite scientific. But your point is well taken though, as there are some people who insist upon ignorance and hold forth their leader or religion as an excuse.
No. Are the principles of the modern German government based on Nazism?
With your examples are you simply arguing that governments change? I do not disagree. e.g. the modern German government is certainly not based on Nazism, though it once was.
The severing of religion from government was quite deliberate, and very much the whole point of the Establishment Clause
I agree entirely. They were persecuted by other Christians for their variant beliefs. I was not asking if you thought the US has a religious government, because they obviously don't (for the exact reason you mentioned). I was trying to ask if you thought that it is fair to say that the morals / philosophy / principles of the US were based upon Christianity?
But I apologize -- in retrospect, it is a poor question since it is so complex and lacking concrete definitions. Furthermore, as another poster led me to consider, the principles of Christianity are broad by comparison to more immediate influences such as Locke or Voltaire, who themselves may have been Christian or influenced by it.
But that hat temporarily comes off when you enter the halls of government - or at least it's supposed to.
That's the interesting thing... it is my understanding that, perhaps until recently, religion did play a role in governmental processes (prayer, the Bible, etc.) and that the First Amendment was interpreted that no legal power was to be given to any religious authority. Of course, perhaps my impressions of US history are incomplete.
No more so than the Socratic/Platonic philosophy, the Lockean philosophy, the Cartesean philosophy, the philosophy of Voltaire...
:)
I'm not deeply familiar with all of those philosophers, but from what I do know, their works are much more detailed than the Bible (the best source for Christianity I can think of). I have no doubt much US philosophy came from them, as well as other contemporaries.
Actually, I thought at least some of them were Christian (Descartes?, Voltaire?, Locke?)? So I wouldn't be surprised if there was some overlap of their basic principles.
Of course, Christianity itself can be viewed as being founded upon other sources (most notably Judaism). If you want to get into the Catholic (Universal) church, you can probably find influences from everywhere as it was intended to unite all religions under "Christianity".
Jesus of Nazareth was just one of the philosophers with whom the Founding Fathers were familiar, and who influenced their views.
From my understanding, life for most US people back then was highly religious compared to today and the vast majority were Christian (or some rough derivative, depending upon what "Christian" means to you). Again, I think the influence of Christianity was pervasive, but general, e.g. as opposed to the influence of Locke, which was much more specific.
I recall a story told to me about an Israeli. He was asked if he was religious, and he said "no, not at all". Then he was asked if he had ever read the Bible (or perhaps the Torah), and he said, "yes, almost everyday". And subsequently that he generally believed in it. I say this simply to illustrate how differently people can define terms. He probably associates Orthodox Judaism as "religious".
So, after much ado and entirely too much typing which was probably better intended for one of my other posts (sorry), I gratefully accept your correction of me as it was intended: Christianity was not the only influence on US founders.