There is only one fair solution. We are responsible for our own debt.
I note that this doesn't mean everybody gets the same breaks. We cannot make life fair, we can only do our best to make how we deal with it fair. As in your example of the lions, it's a wonderful thing when people choose to help. When the government uses the force of law to compel that help, it's not so wonderful in my opinion. It's socialism, and it has its good points. It is my belief that they are outweighed by its bad points.
My actual final answer to your question is yes, if you can't obtain financing or pay up front for what you need, you don't get it. Financing can come from (voluntary) insurance, from charitable organizations, from friends and family. If that's not available - and I recognize that it often is not - then you don't get treatment.
Anything else and everyone who has a legitimate need has a legitimate claim on the fruits of your labor, which are gained by the expenditure of your time. Your time is your life; clearly, in your personal case, other's time/life/money in small amounts is a good trade for you. Again, I have no problem with people volunteering such assistance. But when the government sets up a system in which others are forced to pay because you can't, without their explicit compliance, that's a problem. We can posit that they did comply because they live in our society, but that's sophistry; many rules and regulations are in place that many if not most individuals would not accede to if they had a choice.
That's the best answer I can give. Some of us are born with costly defects, some of us make bad choices, some of us have bad luck. It's no one's fault, but that's life. If I wanted to live in a socialist society, I would vote for socialists, or move to a socialist country.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion." - Thomas Jefferson
Hmmm. Well, I certainly don't wish cancer on anyone. It killed my mother pretty quickly. However, if your debt was 'discharged', who ultimately paid your medical bills? The provider? Or were they paid by the state, i.e. society? In either event, how is that fair? If you get cancer, that's not fair, but (presumably) there's no redress. If you receive the benefit of treatment, but escape the cost of that benefit, that's also not fair; Someone else, who did not receive the benefit, has to pay the cost. It's not free. I'm not trying to blame you for getting cancer, nor denigrate you. The simple facts are that it's not fair you had cancer, but neither you nor anyone else could do anything about that. It's also not fair for others to pay for the treatment.
RFT!!! Dave Kelsen
"Have no fear of robbers or murderers. Such dangers are without, and are but petty. We should fear ourselves. Prejudices are the real robbers; vices the real murderers. The great dangers are within us. What matters it what threatens our heads or our purses? Let us think only of what threatens our souls." - Victor Hugo
That said, bankruptcy judges typically take a rather dim view of creditors that try to do this -- the whole point to bankruptcy is to give the honest person a fresh start (there aren't supposed to be debtor's prisons in the US).
An honest person will pay their debts. That's what honest means.
RFT!!! Dave Kelsen -- "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." -- P.J. O'Rourke
"You don't have any exclusive rights to your writings [read performance] other than the ones that the congress grants you."
Man, this is just wrong...
To start with, if every right you have *were* enumerated in the Constitition, then there is clearly no right of Congress or any other federal agency to secure for someone else the rights to material you own.
Secondly, rest assured that not every right a citizen of the United States has by dint of citizenship is specifically enumerated in the Constitution. You may rest assured that citizens do have rights which are not granted by Congress or any fucking body else. The Declaration alludes to this, referring to some of them as 'unalienable'.
Finally, you may wish to consider that *all* human rights are ultimately property rights. The question of what person or entity can or will be legally allowed to abrogate your rights to your person, your time, and the fruits of your labor is the only real question ever addressed, however well or poorly, by any government, anytime, anywhere.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." -- Thomas Jefferson
Governments are elected by the people to enact laws. So, yeah, they do.
No they don't. (Some) governments are elected by the people to enact laws. This gives them a monopoly over 'legal' and 'illegal'. That does not necessarily have any direct relation to 'right' and 'wrong'.
First, I understand the distinction between objects and concepts. Simple, eh? You mistake my premise entirely. The point is not that physical property is the same as ideas; the point is that the concept of property *rights* is just that - a concept. Simple, eh? (A concept I wholeheartedly understand and agree with.)
The further point is that imagining a world without intellectual property rights is no more sensible or productive than imagining a world without physical property rights.
Your notion fails to recognize the diverse purposes of intellectual creation. For example, the Constitution of the United States would not be serving its devised and designated purpose if citizens were not allowed to read it, quote it, discuss it, reprint and disseminate it - treated as a public document, owned by 'society'. Conversely, a reasonable person would be hard pressed to make the same case for, say, Jefferson's personal letters to Adams. I might want to read them, I might gain something from reading them, but I don't have a right to read them just because they are (or contain) information. That adjudication belongs to Adams, not me (or Jefferson).
To make sweeping statements about 'information' leads to partiularly touchy spots in our current information-based society. Should everyone know what the FBI or the OSI knows? Should ISPs retain reams of information on all their customers - and divulge it?
There's information and there's information; your premise seems to indicate that you do not acknowledge intellectual property as such. I ask again, if I write a story or compose a song, by what machination does it become the property of 'society' without my specifically willing it so?
By the way, your idea about the preservation of ancient writings implies that the owners of those intellectual properties would not have wished them copied and/or preserved. Somehow, I think that assumption is wrong.
I'm suggesting that information, unlike property, is inherently free (or collectively owned -- same difference). You can tell this is the case by imagining a world without copyright: physical property would still have owners, but information would not.
If you imagine a world without property rights, physical property wouldn't have owners either - just current holders. Since property *rights* are only a legal distinction (like copyright), Jefferson et al. must have been completely off course in basing the Constitution and the underlying tenets of our society on them. The joke's on Locke!
This depends on a false premise: it is not their content to sell! The information inherently belongs to society; they are (in effect) merely renting the right to distribute it for a limited period of time.
I'm sorry, I don't understand; on first reading, it appears that you're claiming that if I compose a song or create a story, it doesn't belong to me - it belongs to 'society'. Since that's too fucking stupid to be the case, would you mind terribly explaining what you *do* mean?
I never said or implied that horrific acts were justified. What are your feelings on the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Probably the bravest, most difficult, smartest things that has ever been done. Saved something on the order of a million Japanese lives, half a million American lives; I know, I know, those numbers are low, but I'm trying to be gentle.
What does those bombings have to do with the (off-topic) subject at hand? Is this simply a non-sequiter, or did you have something in mind?
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
I've reached that age in life when I surreptitiously ogle my co-worker -- a smokin'-hot blonde Russian chick with legs that go on for days -- and all I can think is, "Man, I wish I could get her to say, 'Boris! Is Moose and Squirrel!'" -- Allen Lindsey
Congress is the term we use to refer to both the House of Representatives (a member of which is referred to properly as a Representative or Congressman) and the Senate, a member of which is interestingly enough never referred to as a Congressman, but almost exclusively as a Senator).
Congress consists of both chambers, and does not properly refer to the House exclusively.
Which says more about your lack than the complexity of the tax laws. I've done my taxes (which include a small business, investments, and for the last four years an estate) for years, by hand, using nothing but a handful of pamphlets from the IRS, a calculator (sans memory) and a few sheets of scrap paper. It takes me about two hours each evening for a week. (But then I keep good records all year, most of folks tax time stress comes from poor recordkeeping - so says my sister the CPA in tax practice.)
Pussy. A calculator and scrap paper?
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
"Have no fear of robbers or murderers. Such dangers are without, and are but petty. We should fear ourselves. Prejudices are the real robbers; vices the real murderers. The great dangers are within us. What matters it what threatens our heads or our purses? Let us think only of what threatens our souls." -- Victor Hugo
If I am correct in surmising that your argument rests on the notion that only physical objects can have objective value, then your penultimate statement was correct: there is no convincing me. Such a notion is altogether irrational, and ignores all of human history. Consider the difference in the scale of human endeavor between the last two hundred years and the rest of known history.
In the words of R.A. Heinlein, "Anything free is worth what you pay for it."
Artifacts originate with ideas. The artifacts have value because the underlying concepts that shaped them have imparted value to them. Without the idea, a song is just some paper and ink. It is the unique talent of the creator of the song which gives the song whatever value is assigned to it by the listener. If the listener does not find a value in the song, he or she may choose not to deliver a value in exchange for it. True capitalism embodies an exchange of values, be it admiration or dollars or other medium. As long as the exchange is freely agreed upon by both participants, there is no 'rape' or 'robbery'. To circumvent capitalism by pretending that only physical property can be valued or owned is disingenuous. I can't imagine anyone who's ever had a creative thought in their head agreeing with you - but then, until I read what you've written, I couldn't imagine you either, so I am certainly no judge. It is my fervent hope, however, that creatures such as you do not intellectually propagate. I fear more for the world today than I did yesterday.
I am 48 years old, and until today I never thought I would encounter someone who actually embodied the philosophy of Wesley Mouch. I stand abashed. If you choose to reply, I will certainly read it, but I will no longer respond.
You have twice mentioned 'rape' with respect to copyright protection, indicating that the protection of intellectual property was somehow depriving the general consumer of some value, while steadfastly maintaining that nearly all intellectual property so protected *has* no value. Which is it?
If you produce something which is 'crap', and I buy it, how am I being 'raped', or deprived of some value - presuming that I am not forced to buy it, of course? Conversely, if you produce something which is valuable to me, and I exchange another value (such as money) for it, how am I being 'raped'?
What you fail to consider is that producers of intellectual property are entirely free to give it away in any manner they choose. If I write a song, I can give it to anyone I wish. If I create a sculpture, I can give it to anyone I wish. If I wish to show the sulpture to anyone who wants to look, I can do so. If I wish to show the scultpure only to those who are over 6 feet tall, I am free to make that distinction. If I wish to show that sculpture only to those who are willing to give me a stipend for the privilege, I am free to do that as well.
Likewise, If I wish to distribute my song worldwide, I can do that, presuming I can pay for it (or get it paid for). Of course, I don't have the right to force the people who have developed the infrastructure for worldwide distribution to do it for me, but I can either pay them to do so, or I can develop that infratructure myself. Because I own my creation, I can generally hire those people on a consignment basis, using the potential sales value of my creation. If I wish, I can assign the rights to my creation to them, for some value they and I agree on.
In all of these scenarios, I have a choice, the producers have a choice, and the consumers have a choice. If I understand what you're advocating, once I produce my creation, it becomes the property of the fellow who was paying me to live (my patron), but *only* so that that patron can distribute it to the masses for free.
I fail to see how that's a better solution, or how much in the way of intellectual endeavor will proceed for long. It seems to me that your sobriquet is remarkably apt.
a flat tax rate instead of the ridiculous graduated tax rates. (Where I can actually make more money and end up with less because my tax percentage jumps.)
This is a misconception. Even if you are just barely in the next highest tax bracket you will never lose 100% of the money that is in that highest bracket so it is impossible to end up with less than you would have had if you were still entirely in the lower bracket. At least this is how it is in the United States, however at one time in the United Kingdom this WAS true and the highest bracket was actually paying 105% of income in that bracket, but even the most hardened socialist cannot claim that was fair so they fixed it back to 90%. With regard to graduated rates a more elegant smooth curve, possibly involving the natural logarithm, would have been more elegant than the crude bracket system, but then again most citizens, including politicians, never took calculus and so if they cannot understand the system then it must be unfair...sheesh
Although he is correct, the more salient point is that graduated taxing is inherently unfair. A flat tax without upper limits (although I would not tax the first $20-30K) is much more fair. The question then turns on how to assess and tax 'corporate income'. Perhaps a national sales tax is a better answer - or some combination of the two.
Inheritance is income just like any other source of income. It should be taxed as income. Taxes above and beyond income, just because it is inheritance, for example are unfair and should not be levied.
No, inheritance tax and gift tax are evil in nature. The money was taxed when it was earned, and will be taxed when it is spent. The fact that I hand it to you to spend rather than spend it myself does not mean that it should be taxed again. The very notion is abhorrent. Of course, people would again use corporate 'gifts' to avoid income tax under a tax regime that recognized this. There are no *easy* answers, but certainly answers that can be arrived at that are superior in myriad ways to the labyrinthine, unfathomable morass that is the current state of taxation in the U.S.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
Don't pee down my back and tell me it's raining.
Sure it is. The mathematical truth isn't, but that's an idea. You've provided an expression of an idea. As such you have endorsed standard western (and base-10) methods of numeric expression over other forms. 10 + 10 = 100 II + II = IV 2 + 2 = 11 (base-3) All express the same idea, but the idea must be expressed for others to know, and on some level that expression will always convey a bias.
Horseshit. You have let yourself be convinced by pedantic sophists that this sort of claptrap expresses wisdom. Examine what you said above, and explain what the bias conveyed is. Pointing out that the statement is communicated doesn't indicate what the 'bias' is. Please.
I should have known I was too old to still be reading Slashdot.
Or simply that you're an uneducable, dimwitted fascist crackhead condemned to sub-mediocrity by your inability to distinguish humor from hate, even after having it explicitly detailed for you.
For what it's worth, you spelled puerile correctly, and as a bonus completely missed the irony of *your* ussing the term at all.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
Don't write down to your readers; the only people less intelligent than you can't read.
There are a number of groups that have both non-copyrighted (and copyrighted) works available for download; every kind of book, from horror to geek to history to lectures to sci-fi to fantasy. Not to mention language CDs - you could learn something while driving!
There are books available at Project Gutenberg as well.
The umbrella example is apt, in my opinion. It is a form of protection, as is a patent - and a weapon. Like both of these, the fact that it can be used for other purposes does not invalidate its use as a form of protection.
Allegory can be dangerous, but so can ordinary words not rife with comparative values.
I am sorry you resent the insinuation; let me be clearer. Your statement that "publication should be *at-least* a good a defensive measure as taking out a patent" is simply wrong, because it requires that the holder give up the patent to keep it. That's simply *not* good defense.
Finally, Microsoft's patenting actions and patterns may be what you intended to discuss, but it didn't work out that way. What you said was, "Any weapon that can be used offensively in any way will eventually be used as such, have a look at history...." This is plainly untrue. Whether you actually believe it is not germane, and I have no wish or intention of changing your mind. This is simply a case wherein 'I call bullshit', and gave examples.
In any event, you managed to feel resentment without resorting to attack, and I respect you for that.
I have the luxury of not living in a contry where gun-ownership is considered a means of protection,... let alone nesssesary.
It seems to me that when I said, "So far they have not been used at all", it would imply that the guns I own for protection have not been necessary. Perhaps you read something else into it?
An umbrella has a specific advantage, it prevents you from getting wet, other ways to prevent you from getting wet include rain-proof clothes, staying indoors and simply waiting for it to stop raining. There are several possibilities, you are not forced to use an umbrella.
Absolutely right. An umbrella only prevents you from getting wet if it's raining, and then only if you are in a position where you need to be out in the rain, and have no other prevention; say, your slicker leaks. Of course, you are not forced to use the umbrella; you can avoid going outside, or you can get wet - or you can simply count on luck to keep you from ever being anywhere where it's raining. Likewise, a weapon only prevents you getting robbed or killed if you are in the process of being robbed or killed, and you have no other prevention; say, your door has been broken down. Of course, you are not forced to use the weapon. You can live where only reasonable people are allowed (hint: we don't have any countries, states, counties, cities, or villages like that on the planet), or you can get robbed or killed - or you can simply count on luck to keep you from ever being anywhere where your life or liberty may be imperiled.
I must say that while I agree with your comment, I fail to see the relevance of it.
As i understand the current patent-law (at least in my country) you cannot patent public knowledge, so publication should be *at-least* a good a defensive measure as taking out a patent.
Granted. But -- and I realize this is extremely unlikely, but humor me - suppose you wanted to protect a process which you didn't want to reveal to everyone by publication. Say, a process which you worked long and hard to develop, and which you believe will be valuable enough to your fellow men that they would be grateful for the opportunity to exchange the fruits of *their* labor - money - for the fruits of *your* labor - the result of this process. Again, I understand that it's a bit absurd, but bear with me. Of course, they could just *give* you the money they earned with their work, and you could just *give* them the process you developed with your work (by publishing it), I know. But - and I know this is going to be met with scepticism - *I* have met people who actually wouldn't do the right thing in this situation if the law didn't force them to! No, really! I mean it! There are even those who go to other people's houses and try to *take* the fruits of other people's labor -- without asking! Did I mention that preventative insurance can be a good idea? Even if you never use it, or even need it?
If you don't intend to use patents offensively, then don't take them out. And don't work for the same legislation in the EU, just make the results public instead and use your energy to fight the legislation instead.
I'm not arguing that Microsoft will not use the patents they have taken out in an offensive manner; I think they probably will. But to postulate that there is no other rationale for having patents is absurd.
I have had handguns in my home for many years. I purchased them to be used defensively. Handguns *can* be used offensively. It does *not* follow that the handguns in my home *will* be used offensively. So far, they have not been used at all (except for target practice).
As a defensive measure, I'd much rather have a handgun and not need it than need it and not have it. I'd much rather have an umbrella available in case it rains, and not need it, than need one and not have it. Likewise, I'd much rather have a patent and not need it than need one and not have it.
Intellectual property is an artificial creation, and one which in its current forms has done a great deal of harm to our society. Unlike tangible property which is a concept that has proven useful for millenia, the extension of the notion of property to intellectual works does not deserve the same degree of respect.
Damn right; the people who do creative work have *no* right to the fruits of their labor. By god they *owe* it to the rest of us,/because/ we couldn't come up with the ideas on our own. Intellectual property, indeed. Hmph. Arrogant intellectual bastards.
The solution to this is to file a class-action lawsuit (on behalf of all the photographers in the city) back at the city on the basis that posting the sculpture in a public park and attempting to claim copyright infringement on photographs of the park that happen to include the sculpture constitutes a legal taking of the public's right to use the park, and require that the city immediately remove the sculpture, with damages to be paid to anyone who can present to the court a photograph of the park as proof of their use of the park for photographic purposes...
Better do it quick... W plans to make class action law suits nearly illegal. The Senate has already passed the legislation.
Your rights aren't nullified by infringement. They're infringed, but you still have them and can still assert them. It's the difference between respecting something naturally, and being forced to respect something.
Well, that's refreshing and reassuring. I still have my rights, and can assert them; apparently they are meaningless assertions, as you (or anyone else) can simply decide that what I wish to do with my property doesn't matter. After all, I still have my rights.
The statements you have made indicate that you are (most likely deliberately) missing the purpose of copyright law. The hypothetical fence I described earlier is not designed to keep people from climbing the fence; that would be nonsensical, along the lines of putting up a sign which reads, "DON'T READ THIS SIGN". The purpose of the fence is to prevent unauthorized access to what's inside. Similarly, the objective embodied by copyright law is not to protect the piece of paper it is written on or the concept of copyright - it is to prevent unauthorized access to the material which is copyrighted.
You've said it nearly correctly yourself. Copyright law is designed to protect the public interest in the creation of original works. You seem to have no notion of how it is supposed to achieve that protection, or why.
Copyright law protects the public interest by defending the natural right of the creator to dispense with his creation as he sees fit, in recognition of the simple fact that in many cases - certainly not all - the creator could and would choose not to make his creation public at all, or perhaps not to create the work. It is for this reason that when you violate the creator's right to dispense his creation as he sees fit, you act against the public interest.
Even a peremptory perusal of the final sentence in my penultimate reply would show that I neither claimed nor implied that when you circumvent a lawful owner's control of his property, what you are stealing is that property. Nonetheless, you are stealing. There are many things in this world which have value, but cannot be counted as chattels. Such faulty conclusions in a court of law will at the least gain you a reputation for carelessness. Likewise, you failed to grasp that it is not the rules that are bullshit -albeit some certainly are - it's the legalistic misdirection. You fail to engage the issue on its merits, choosing instead to obfuscate with non-sequiters and outright misrepresentations. For example, you state that a creative work cannot be property.
No, first, there is a world of difference between a copyright and the work the copyright pertains to. I think that you're conflating them. An infringement does not involve a taking of either, but at most only the former can be property to begin with.
Whether you engage in this kind of misdirection as a matter of habit, or incidentally, or with full intention, is hardly germane.
By the way, the example I gave previously is best expanded thusly: suppose the property I wish to defend with my fence is a waterflow, for which I performed research, bought the land, and did the excavating required to allow it to flow to the surface. When you climb my fence and steal a bottle, I still have the spring, and I have not been measurably impoverished; while I will never miss the water, I have been robbed. But you have a concrete and physical item, although you did not do the work required to produce the water as I did.
You may demean the simple example, but I don't believe you fail to grasp the meaning of the legal protection granted by copyright law. Of course, you may choose to misunderstand it, and you may choose to denunciate it, or attempt to abridge or destroy it - or, as seems to be the case here, simply to obfuscate it.
I referred to my most previous posting as penultimate, and so it is. I will no longer reply to this thread, but I will certainly read any replies you (or any others, of course) care to make.
I'm sorry, I'm using a term of art. 'Exclusive' with regards to copyright, is the right to exclude others at one's leisure. It's not a right to actually do anything, however, and it is not to be confused with the more common use of that word to mean 'sole.'
It might be useful in this arena if you a.) use terms which are in reasonably common usage, and b.) stick to the normally accepted meaning of those terms. Just a suggestion; in the cases where that isn't feasible, you might signal the difference somehow. Now then; if you circumvent my ability to exclude others - *any others* - at my leisure, you have abrogated my rights. Your point of view implies that there is no other property than what is referred to legally as 'real property'. You surely must know that this is not true, so perhaps I am misunderstanding what I am reading.
If I merely infringe on a copyright, however, I have not removed your exclusive control, I'm merely ignoring it. You can still exclude everyone else just as much as you ever could. When I stop, you don't get anything back, because nothing was taken. You just get someone to stop ignoring you.
In fact, if you nullify my legal rights by your deliberate action, you have taken something from me, expressly against my wishes. The legal term for this is theft. It does not apply strictly to material property in any venue I am aware of.
You seem to be confusing the issue. Say I have property I wish to defend, and I put a fence around it to keep it safe. You climb over the fence and steal it. Truly, you have not removed the fence, and it will still keep out those who won't climb over it. But the objective of the fence is not to keep people from climbing over it; it is to safeguard my property. This is likewise the objective of copyright law, and when you circumvent the lawful owner's control of his property, real or otherwise, you are stealing, legalistic bullshit notwithstanding.
Conversion may very well be amoral. Nevertheless, copyright infringement is utterly distinct from conversion, among other reasons due to the fact that the former does not involve wresting exclusive control over something, and the latter does.
If I have exclusive control over product a, and you subvert that control by infringing on my copyright (by copying and distributing product a), I no longer have exclusive control over product a. Where's the utter distinction?
Slashdot Mirror
There is only one fair solution. We are responsible for our own debt.
I note that this doesn't mean everybody gets the same breaks. We cannot make life fair, we can only do our best to make how we deal with it fair. As in your example of the lions, it's a wonderful thing when people choose to help. When the government uses the force of law to compel that help, it's not so wonderful in my opinion. It's socialism, and it has its good points. It is my belief that they are outweighed by its bad points.
My actual final answer to your question is yes, if you can't obtain financing or pay up front for what you need, you don't get it. Financing can come from (voluntary) insurance, from charitable organizations, from friends and family. If that's not available - and I recognize that it often is not - then you don't get treatment.
Anything else and everyone who has a legitimate need has a legitimate claim on the fruits of your labor, which are gained by the expenditure of your time. Your time is your life; clearly, in your personal case, other's time/life/money in small amounts is a good trade for you. Again, I have no problem with people volunteering such assistance. But when the government sets up a system in which others are forced to pay because you can't, without their explicit compliance, that's a problem. We can posit that they did comply because they live in our society, but that's sophistry; many rules and regulations are in place that many if not most individuals would not accede to if they had a choice.
That's the best answer I can give. Some of us are born with costly defects, some of us make bad choices, some of us have bad luck. It's no one's fault, but that's life. If I wanted to live in a socialist society, I would vote for socialists, or move to a socialist country.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion." - Thomas Jefferson
Hmmm. Well, I certainly don't wish cancer on anyone. It killed my mother pretty quickly. However, if your debt was 'discharged', who ultimately paid your medical bills? The provider? Or were they paid by the state, i.e. society? In either event, how is that fair? If you get cancer, that's not fair, but (presumably) there's no redress. If you receive the benefit of treatment, but escape the cost of that benefit, that's also not fair; Someone else, who did not receive the benefit, has to pay the cost. It's not free.
I'm not trying to blame you for getting cancer, nor denigrate you. The simple facts are that it's not fair you had cancer, but neither you nor anyone else could do anything about that. It's also not fair for others to pay for the treatment.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
"Have no fear of robbers or murderers. Such dangers are without, and are but petty. We should fear ourselves. Prejudices are the real robbers; vices the real murderers. The great dangers are within us. What matters it what threatens our heads or our purses? Let us think only of what threatens our souls." - Victor Hugo
That said, bankruptcy judges typically take a rather dim view of creditors that try to do this -- the whole point to bankruptcy is to give the honest person a fresh start (there aren't supposed to be debtor's prisons in the US).
An honest person will pay their debts. That's what honest means.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." -- P.J. O'Rourke
"You don't have any exclusive rights to your writings [read performance] other than the ones that the congress grants you."
Man, this is just wrong...
To start with, if every right you have *were* enumerated in the Constitition, then there is clearly no right of Congress or any other federal agency to secure for someone else the rights to material you own.
Secondly, rest assured that not every right a citizen of the United States has by dint of citizenship is specifically enumerated in the Constitution. You may rest assured that citizens do have rights which are not granted by Congress or any fucking body else. The Declaration alludes to this, referring to some of them as 'unalienable'.
Finally, you may wish to consider that *all* human rights are ultimately property rights. The question of what person or entity can or will be legally allowed to abrogate your rights to your person, your time, and the fruits of your labor is the only real question ever addressed, however well or poorly, by any government, anytime, anywhere.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." -- Thomas Jefferson
Governments are elected by the people to enact laws. So, yeah, they do.
No they don't. (Some) governments are elected by the people to enact laws. This gives them a monopoly over 'legal' and 'illegal'. That does not necessarily have any direct relation to 'right' and 'wrong'.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
First, I understand the distinction between objects and concepts. Simple, eh? You mistake my premise entirely. The point is not that physical property is the same as ideas; the point is that the concept of property *rights* is just that - a concept. Simple, eh? (A concept I wholeheartedly understand and agree with.)
The further point is that imagining a world without intellectual property rights is no more sensible or productive than imagining a world without physical property rights.
Your notion fails to recognize the diverse purposes of intellectual creation. For example, the Constitution of the United States would not be serving its devised and designated purpose if citizens were not allowed to read it, quote it, discuss it, reprint and disseminate it - treated as a public document, owned by 'society'. Conversely, a reasonable person would be hard pressed to make the same case for, say, Jefferson's personal letters to Adams. I might want to read them, I might gain something from reading them, but I don't have a right to read them just because they are (or contain) information. That adjudication belongs to Adams, not me (or Jefferson).
To make sweeping statements about 'information' leads to partiularly touchy spots in our current information-based society. Should everyone know what the FBI or the OSI knows? Should ISPs retain reams of information on all their customers - and divulge it?
There's information and there's information; your premise seems to indicate that you do not acknowledge intellectual property as such. I ask again, if I write a story or compose a song, by what machination does it become the property of 'society' without my specifically willing it so?
By the way, your idea about the preservation of ancient writings implies that the owners of those intellectual properties would not have wished them copied and/or preserved. Somehow, I think that assumption is wrong.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
I'm suggesting that information, unlike property, is inherently free (or collectively owned -- same difference). You can tell this is the case by imagining a world without copyright: physical property would still have owners, but information would not.
If you imagine a world without property rights, physical property wouldn't have owners either - just current holders. Since property *rights* are only a legal distinction (like copyright), Jefferson et al. must have been completely off course in basing the Constitution and the underlying tenets of our society on them. The joke's on Locke!
This depends on a false premise: it is not their content to sell! The information inherently belongs to society; they are (in effect) merely renting the right to distribute it for a limited period of time.
I'm sorry, I don't understand; on first reading, it appears that you're claiming that if I compose a song or create a story, it doesn't belong to me - it belongs to 'society'. Since that's too fucking stupid to be the case, would you mind terribly explaining what you *do* mean?
Thanks.
Dave Kelsen
Probably the bravest, most difficult, smartest things that has ever been done. Saved something on the order of a million Japanese lives, half a million American lives; I know, I know, those numbers are low, but I'm trying to be gentle.
What does those bombings have to do with the (off-topic) subject at hand? Is this simply a non-sequiter, or did you have something in mind?
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
I've reached that age in life when I surreptitiously ogle my co-worker -- a smokin'-hot blonde Russian chick with legs that go on for days -- and all I can think is, "Man, I wish I could get her to say, 'Boris! Is Moose and Squirrel!'" -- Allen Lindsey
Just for the sake of clarity.
Congress is the term we use to refer to both the House of Representatives (a member of which is referred to properly as a Representative or Congressman) and the Senate, a member of which is interestingly enough never referred to as a Congressman, but almost exclusively as a Senator).
Congress consists of both chambers, and does not properly refer to the House exclusively.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
Pussy. A calculator and scrap paper?
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
"Have no fear of robbers or murderers. Such dangers are without, and are but petty. We should fear ourselves. Prejudices are the real robbers; vices the real murderers. The great dangers are within us. What matters it what threatens our heads or our purses? Let us think only of what threatens our souls." -- Victor Hugo
If I am correct in surmising that your argument rests on the notion that only physical objects can have objective value, then your penultimate statement was correct: there is no convincing me. Such a notion is altogether irrational, and ignores all of human history. Consider the difference in the scale of human endeavor between the last two hundred years and the rest of known history.
In the words of R.A. Heinlein, "Anything free is worth what you pay for it."
Artifacts originate with ideas. The artifacts have value because the underlying concepts that shaped them have imparted value to them. Without the idea, a song is just some paper and ink. It is the unique talent of the creator of the song which gives the song whatever value is assigned to it by the listener. If the listener does not find a value in the song, he or she may choose not to deliver a value in exchange for it. True capitalism embodies an exchange of values, be it admiration or dollars or other medium. As long as the exchange is freely agreed upon by both participants, there is no 'rape' or 'robbery'. To circumvent capitalism by pretending that only physical property can be valued or owned is disingenuous. I can't imagine anyone who's ever had a creative thought in their head agreeing with you - but then, until I read what you've written, I couldn't imagine you either, so I am certainly no judge. It is my fervent hope, however, that creatures such as you do not intellectually propagate. I fear more for the world today than I did yesterday.
I am 48 years old, and until today I never thought I would encounter someone who actually embodied the philosophy of Wesley Mouch. I stand abashed. If you choose to reply, I will certainly read it, but I will no longer respond.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
M. Maximus:
You have twice mentioned 'rape' with respect to copyright protection, indicating that the protection of intellectual property was somehow depriving the general consumer of some value, while steadfastly maintaining that nearly all intellectual property so protected *has* no value. Which is it?
If you produce something which is 'crap', and I buy it, how am I being 'raped', or deprived of some value - presuming that I am not forced to buy it, of course? Conversely, if you produce something which is valuable to me, and I exchange another value (such as money) for it, how am I being 'raped'?
What you fail to consider is that producers of intellectual property are entirely free to give it away in any manner they choose. If I write a song, I can give it to anyone I wish. If I create a sculpture, I can give it to anyone I wish. If I wish to show the sulpture to anyone who wants to look, I can do so. If I wish to show the scultpure only to those who are over 6 feet tall, I am free to make that distinction. If I wish to show that sculpture only to those who are willing to give me a stipend for the privilege, I am free to do that as well.
Likewise, If I wish to distribute my song worldwide, I can do that, presuming I can pay for it (or get it paid for). Of course, I don't have the right to force the people who have developed the infrastructure for worldwide distribution to do it for me, but I can either pay them to do so, or I can develop that infratructure myself. Because I own my creation, I can generally hire those people on a consignment basis, using the potential sales value of my creation. If I wish, I can assign the rights to my creation to them, for some value they and I agree on.
In all of these scenarios, I have a choice, the producers have a choice, and the consumers have a choice. If I understand what you're advocating, once I produce my creation, it becomes the property of the fellow who was paying me to live (my patron), but *only* so that that patron can distribute it to the masses for free.
I fail to see how that's a better solution, or how much in the way of intellectual endeavor will proceed for long. It seems to me that your sobriquet is remarkably apt.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
a flat tax rate instead of the ridiculous graduated tax rates. (Where I can actually make more money and end up with less because my tax percentage jumps.)
This is a misconception. Even if you are just barely in the next highest tax bracket you will never lose 100% of the money that is in that highest bracket so it is impossible to end up with less than you would have had if you were still entirely in the lower bracket. At least this is how it is in the United States, however at one time in the United Kingdom this WAS true and the highest bracket was actually paying 105% of income in that bracket, but even the most hardened socialist cannot claim that was fair so they fixed it back to 90%. With regard to graduated rates a more elegant smooth curve, possibly involving the natural logarithm, would have been more elegant than the crude bracket system, but then again most citizens, including politicians, never took calculus and so if they cannot understand the system then it must be unfair...sheesh
Although he is correct, the more salient point is that graduated taxing is inherently unfair. A flat tax without upper limits (although I would not tax the first $20-30K) is much more fair. The question then turns on how to assess and tax 'corporate income'. Perhaps a national sales tax is a better answer - or some combination of the two.
Inheritance is income just like any other source of income. It should be taxed as income. Taxes above and beyond income, just because it is inheritance, for example are unfair and should not be levied.
No, inheritance tax and gift tax are evil in nature. The money was taxed when it was earned, and will be taxed when it is spent. The fact that I hand it to you to spend rather than spend it myself does not mean that it should be taxed again. The very notion is abhorrent. Of course, people would again use corporate 'gifts' to avoid income tax under a tax regime that recognized this. There are no *easy* answers, but certainly answers that can be arrived at that are superior in myriad ways to the labyrinthine, unfathomable morass that is the current state of taxation in the U.S.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
Don't pee down my back and tell me it's raining.
Sure it is. The mathematical truth isn't, but that's an idea. You've provided an expression of an idea. As such you have endorsed standard western (and base-10) methods of numeric expression over other forms. 10 + 10 = 100 II + II = IV 2 + 2 = 11 (base-3) All express the same idea, but the idea must be expressed for others to know, and on some level that expression will always convey a bias.
Horseshit. You have let yourself be convinced by pedantic sophists that this sort of claptrap expresses wisdom. Examine what you said above, and explain what the bias conveyed is. Pointing out that the statement is communicated doesn't indicate what the 'bias' is. Please.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
I should have known I was too old to still be reading Slashdot.
Or simply that you're an uneducable, dimwitted fascist crackhead condemned to sub-mediocrity by your inability to distinguish humor from hate, even after having it explicitly detailed for you.
For what it's worth, you spelled puerile correctly, and as a bonus completely missed the irony of *your* ussing the term at all.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
Don't write down to your readers; the only people less intelligent than you can't read.
There are a number of groups that have both non-copyrighted (and copyrighted) works available for download; every kind of book, from horror to geek to history to lectures to sci-fi to fantasy. Not to mention language CDs - you could learn something while driving!
There are books available at Project Gutenberg as well.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
The umbrella example is apt, in my opinion. It is a form of protection, as is a patent - and a weapon. Like both of these, the fact that it can be used for other purposes does not invalidate its use as a form of protection.
Allegory can be dangerous, but so can ordinary words not rife with comparative values.
I am sorry you resent the insinuation; let me be clearer. Your statement that "publication should be *at-least* a good a defensive measure as taking out a patent" is simply wrong, because it requires that the holder give up the patent to keep it. That's simply *not* good defense.
Finally, Microsoft's patenting actions and patterns may be what you intended to discuss, but it didn't work out that way. What you said was, "Any weapon that can be used offensively in any way will eventually be used as such, have a look at history...." This is plainly untrue. Whether you actually believe it is not germane, and I have no wish or intention of changing your mind. This is simply a case wherein 'I call bullshit', and gave examples.
In any event, you managed to feel resentment without resorting to attack, and I respect you for that.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
I have the luxury of not living in a contry where gun-ownership is considered a means of protection,... let alone nesssesary.
It seems to me that when I said, "So far they have not been used at all", it would imply that the guns I own for protection have not been necessary. Perhaps you read something else into it?
An umbrella has a specific advantage, it prevents you from getting wet, other ways to prevent you from getting wet include rain-proof clothes, staying indoors and simply waiting for it to stop raining. There are several possibilities, you are not forced to use an umbrella.
Absolutely right. An umbrella only prevents you from getting wet if it's raining, and then only if you are in a position where you need to be out in the rain, and have no other prevention; say, your slicker leaks. Of course, you are not forced to use the umbrella; you can avoid going outside, or you can get wet - or you can simply count on luck to keep you from ever being anywhere where it's raining.
Likewise, a weapon only prevents you getting robbed or killed if you are in the process of being robbed or killed, and you have no other prevention; say, your door has been broken down. Of course, you are not forced to use the weapon. You can live where only reasonable people are allowed (hint: we don't have any countries, states, counties, cities, or villages like that on the planet), or you can get robbed or killed - or you can simply count on luck to keep you from ever being anywhere where your life or liberty may be imperiled.
I must say that while I agree with your comment, I fail to see the relevance of it.
As i understand the current patent-law (at least in my country) you cannot patent public knowledge, so publication should be *at-least* a good a defensive measure as taking out a patent.
Granted. But -- and I realize this is extremely unlikely, but humor me - suppose you wanted to protect a process which you didn't want to reveal to everyone by publication. Say, a process which you worked long and hard to develop, and which you believe will be valuable enough to your fellow men that they would be grateful for the opportunity to exchange the fruits of *their* labor - money - for the fruits of *your* labor - the result of this process. Again, I understand that it's a bit absurd, but bear with me. Of course, they could just *give* you the money they earned with their work, and you could just *give* them the process you developed with your work (by publishing it), I know. But - and I know this is going to be met with scepticism - *I* have met people who actually wouldn't do the right thing in this situation if the law didn't force them to! No, really! I mean it! There are even those who go to other people's houses and try to *take* the fruits of other people's labor -- without asking! Did I mention that preventative insurance can be a good idea? Even if you never use it, or even need it?
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
If you don't intend to use patents offensively, then don't take them out. And don't work for the same legislation in the EU, just make the results public instead and use your energy to fight the legislation instead.
I'm not arguing that Microsoft will not use the patents they have taken out in an offensive manner; I think they probably will. But to postulate that there is no other rationale for having patents is absurd.
I have had handguns in my home for many years. I purchased them to be used defensively. Handguns *can* be used offensively. It does *not* follow that the handguns in my home *will* be used offensively. So far, they have not been used at all (except for target practice).
As a defensive measure, I'd much rather have a handgun and not need it than need it and not have it. I'd much rather have an umbrella available in case it rains, and not need it, than need one and not have it. Likewise, I'd much rather have a patent and not need it than need one and not have it.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
Intellectual property is an artificial creation, and one which in its current forms has done a great deal of harm to our society. Unlike tangible property which is a concept that has proven useful for millenia, the extension of the notion of property to intellectual works does not deserve the same degree of respect.
/because/ we couldn't come up with the ideas on our own. Intellectual property, indeed. Hmph. Arrogant intellectual bastards.
Damn right; the people who do creative work have *no* right to the fruits of their labor. By god they *owe* it to the rest of us,
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
Since when has a majority of posts on slashdot been intellectual or honest? I would agree with you if you said hypocritically trollish.
Not to mention anonymous, asshole.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
The solution to this is to file a class-action lawsuit (on behalf of all the photographers in the city) back at the city on the basis that posting the sculpture in a public park and attempting to claim copyright infringement on photographs of the park that happen to include the sculpture constitutes a legal taking of the public's right to use the park, and require that the city immediately remove the sculpture, with damages to be paid to anyone who can present to the court a photograph of the park as proof of their use of the park for photographic purposes...
g .lawsuits.ap/
Better do it quick... W plans to make class action law suits nearly illegal. The Senate has already passed the legislation.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/10/limitin
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
Your rights aren't nullified by infringement. They're infringed, but you still have them and can still assert them. It's the difference between respecting something naturally, and being forced to respect something.
Well, that's refreshing and reassuring. I still have my rights, and can assert them; apparently they are meaningless assertions, as you (or anyone else) can simply decide that what I wish to do with my property doesn't matter. After all, I still have my rights.
The statements you have made indicate that you are (most likely deliberately) missing the purpose of copyright law. The hypothetical fence I described earlier is not designed to keep people from climbing the fence; that would be nonsensical, along the lines of putting up a sign which reads, "DON'T READ THIS SIGN". The purpose of the fence is to prevent unauthorized access to what's inside. Similarly, the objective embodied by copyright law is not to protect the piece of paper it is written on or the concept of copyright - it is to prevent unauthorized access to the material which is copyrighted.
You've said it nearly correctly yourself. Copyright law is designed to protect the public interest in the creation of original works. You seem to have no notion of how it is supposed to achieve that protection, or why.
Copyright law protects the public interest by defending the natural right of the creator to dispense with his creation as he sees fit, in recognition of the simple fact that in many cases - certainly not all - the creator could and would choose not to make his creation public at all, or perhaps not to create the work. It is for this reason that when you violate the creator's right to dispense his creation as he sees fit, you act against the public interest.
Even a peremptory perusal of the final sentence in my penultimate reply would show that I neither claimed nor implied that when you circumvent a lawful owner's control of his property, what you are stealing is that property. Nonetheless, you are stealing. There are many things in this world which have value, but cannot be counted as chattels. Such faulty conclusions in a court of law will at the least gain you a reputation for carelessness. Likewise, you failed to grasp that it is not the rules that are bullshit -albeit some certainly are - it's the legalistic misdirection. You fail to engage the issue on its merits, choosing instead to obfuscate with non-sequiters and outright misrepresentations. For example, you state that a creative work cannot be property.
No, first, there is a world of difference between a copyright and the work the copyright pertains to. I think that you're conflating them. An infringement does not involve a taking of either, but at most only the former can be property to begin with.
Whether you engage in this kind of misdirection as a matter of habit, or incidentally, or with full intention, is hardly germane.
By the way, the example I gave previously is best expanded thusly: suppose the property I wish to defend with my fence is a waterflow, for which I performed research, bought the land, and did the excavating required to allow it to flow to the surface. When you climb my fence and steal a bottle, I still have the spring, and I have not been measurably impoverished; while I will never miss the water, I have been robbed. But you have a concrete and physical item, although you did not do the work required to produce the water as I did.
You may demean the simple example, but I don't believe you fail to grasp the meaning of the legal protection granted by copyright law. Of course, you may choose to misunderstand it, and you may choose to denunciate it, or attempt to abridge or destroy it - or, as seems to be the case here, simply to obfuscate it.
I referred to my most previous posting as penultimate, and so it is. I will no longer reply to this thread, but I will certainly read any replies you (or any others, of course) care to make.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
I'm sorry, I'm using a term of art. 'Exclusive' with regards to copyright, is the right to exclude others at one's leisure. It's not a right to actually do anything, however, and it is not to be confused with the more common use of that word to mean 'sole.'
It might be useful in this arena if you a.) use terms which are in reasonably common usage, and b.) stick to the normally accepted meaning of those terms. Just a suggestion; in the cases where that isn't feasible, you might signal the difference somehow. Now then; if you circumvent my ability to exclude others - *any others* - at my leisure, you have abrogated my rights. Your point of view implies that there is no other property than what is referred to legally as 'real property'. You surely must know that this is not true, so perhaps I am misunderstanding what I am reading.
If I merely infringe on a copyright, however, I have not removed your exclusive control, I'm merely ignoring it. You can still exclude everyone else just as much as you ever could. When I stop, you don't get anything back, because nothing was taken. You just get someone to stop ignoring you.
In fact, if you nullify my legal rights by your deliberate action, you have taken something from me, expressly against my wishes. The legal term for this is theft. It does not apply strictly to material property in any venue I am aware of.
You seem to be confusing the issue. Say I have property I wish to defend, and I put a fence around it to keep it safe. You climb over the fence and steal it. Truly, you have not removed the fence, and it will still keep out those who won't climb over it. But the objective of the fence is not to keep people from climbing over it; it is to safeguard my property. This is likewise the objective of copyright law, and when you circumvent the lawful owner's control of his property, real or otherwise, you are stealing, legalistic bullshit notwithstanding.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
Conversion may very well be amoral. Nevertheless, copyright infringement is utterly distinct from conversion, among other reasons due to the fact that the former does not involve wresting exclusive control over something, and the latter does.
If I have exclusive control over product a, and you subvert that control by infringing on my copyright (by copying and distributing product a), I no longer have exclusive control over product a. Where's the utter distinction?
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen