Where do you suppose creative works come from? In the previous example, the 'copier' didn't come up with his own idea for a refreshing beverage. He copied the Coke. But Coke is Coke's idea; that's what the phrase 'intellectual property' refers to. It's *their* idea. If you want to similarly benefit from an idea, you should have an idea of your own. Coke is sharing their idea with people for an agreed upon price. If the consumer doesn't agree to the price, he doesn't buy it. If Coke doesn't agree to the price, he doesn't sell it. Anything other than a mutually agreed upon exhange of values is a form of coercion.
The upshot of what many of you are extolling (that there is no such legitimate thing as intellectual property) will be the withdrawal of those ideas from the marketplace. What then?
The purpose of copyright is to enrich culture, by ensuring that creative people continue to share their ideas. Copyrights do this by providing a legal foundation for restricting the exchange of those ideas/products without coercion - that is, both parties to the exchange receive a value for that given. Giving someone else a copy of the song you wrote is your right. Giving someone else a copy of a song you didn't write is not your right. It's not your idea, and the person who had the idea, created the song and made it available for sale didn't agreee to the exchange.
This is really not rocket science, fellas. Property and property laws are the basis of western culture. The concept of property is inextricably tied to all other human rights, as well as to democracy. Communism and other socialist schemes are diametrically opposed to the notion of individual property rights; there's a very good reason that is so.
There are differences in intelligence and ability between humans and animals, yes, but there are also intelligence and ability differences between cats and monkeys. There is a wide gap in abilities between, say, humans and porpoises, but just as there are some who believe we are smarter there are those who believe they are smarter.
Is what a species is capable of doing a sufficient reason to create a huge gap between humans and other animals and declare ourselves superior or "better"? I believe that this gap is caused by ego more than anything else.
This doesn't even touch on the subject of having a spirit or soul. Not sure I want to touch that one.:)
It is my position that if humans are not 'superior' or 'better' due to their intellect, then it is up to those other animals which are equal or superior to man to present cogent arguments to the contrary. I think that it is spurious for humans to debate among themselves whether they are philosophically inferior or superior to other creatures in the food chain. I believe that if there's a contrary view, it cannot logically be postulated by humans.
As for possession of a soul or spirit, I have no direct (recollectible) experience, and do not care to venture an opinion.
Most of the arguements I'm seeing revolve around the assumption that humans beings are different from non-human animals. What if this proves that there is no real difference between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom?
Then let the other animals create chimeras and struggle with what to do about 'em. If they can't do it (the creation *or* the philosophical struggle), then I submit that in fact there's something different between human beings and non-human animals (not counting my first wife...)
"Actually a lot of us, who did read the books (over and over and over), not only know the deviations, but don't care, either.
There was no way to make these movies without introducting many, many deviations, simplifications, deletions, and other changes."
Absolutely. On the other hand, there are a lot of readers who understand this, but don't understand the rationale for some of the obvious modifications. For example, I consider the beefing up of Arwen's lines in the first film to be a mistake, but I understand the rationale behind it - it's the 'love story' of the film. I consider the perversion of Faramir's character a mistake, but I cannot fathom any rationale behind it. It's just a simple fuck up.
I accept the need for changes for a myriad of reasons; dialog flow, character development, etc. etc. It seems to me that many changes in these films were made for nonsensical or irrational purposes.
I still appreciate the films, and give honor to Jackson for the incredible work he has given us. But I have questions I would ask him if given a chance.
For what it's worth, there's effectively no such thing as corporate taxes; corporations charge as much money as they wish to make the profit they desire. If you increase the tax they have to pay, they increase the price of the goods or services they produce commensurately. Reducing the taxes they pay will have a reducing effect on prices as well, albeit somewhat slower - the 'float', so to speak.
This holds true for monopolistic industries as well as those which have decent competition, because generally each competing company is paying the same level of taxes.
Slashdot Mirror
Where do you suppose creative works come from? In the previous example, the 'copier' didn't come up with his own idea for a refreshing beverage. He copied the Coke. But Coke is Coke's idea; that's what the phrase 'intellectual property' refers to. It's *their* idea. If you want to similarly benefit from an idea, you should have an idea of your own. Coke is sharing their idea with people for an agreed upon price. If the consumer doesn't agree to the price, he doesn't buy it. If Coke doesn't agree to the price, he doesn't sell it. Anything other than a mutually agreed upon exhange of values is a form of coercion.
The upshot of what many of you are extolling (that there is no such legitimate thing as intellectual property) will be the withdrawal of those ideas from the marketplace. What then?
The purpose of copyright is to enrich culture, by ensuring that creative people continue to share their ideas. Copyrights do this by providing a legal foundation for restricting the exchange of those ideas/products without coercion - that is, both parties to the exchange receive a value for that given. Giving someone else a copy of the song you wrote is your right. Giving someone else a copy of a song you didn't write is not your right. It's not your idea, and the person who had the idea, created the song and made it available for sale didn't agreee to the exchange.
This is really not rocket science, fellas. Property and property laws are the basis of western culture. The concept of property is inextricably tied to all other human rights, as well as to democracy. Communism and other socialist schemes are diametrically opposed to the notion of individual property rights; there's a very good reason that is so.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
There are differences in intelligence and ability between humans and animals, yes, but there are also intelligence and ability differences between cats and monkeys. There is a wide gap in abilities between, say, humans and porpoises, but just as there are some who believe we are smarter there are those who believe they are smarter. Is what a species is capable of doing a sufficient reason to create a huge gap between humans and other animals and declare ourselves superior or "better"? I believe that this gap is caused by ego more than anything else. This doesn't even touch on the subject of having a spirit or soul. Not sure I want to touch that one. :)
It is my position that if humans are not 'superior' or 'better' due to their intellect, then it is up to those other animals which are equal or superior to man to present cogent arguments to the contrary. I think that it is spurious for humans to debate among themselves whether they are philosophically inferior or superior to other creatures in the food chain. I believe that if there's a contrary view, it cannot logically be postulated by humans.
As for possession of a soul or spirit, I have no direct (recollectible) experience, and do not care to venture an opinion.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
Most of the arguements I'm seeing revolve around the assumption that humans beings are different from non-human animals. What if this proves that there is no real difference between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom?
Then let the other animals create chimeras and struggle with what to do about 'em. If they can't do it (the creation *or* the philosophical struggle), then I submit that in fact there's something different between human beings and non-human animals (not counting my first wife...)
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
"Remember that wizard's in Tolkien's world had a livetime supply of total magic that was permanently lost each time they cast a spell."
Yeah; I smoked that shit for years, dude, but I didn't make public announcements about it.
"Actually a lot of us, who did read the books (over and over and over), not only know the deviations, but don't care, either. There was no way to make these movies without introducting many, many deviations, simplifications, deletions, and other changes."
Absolutely. On the other hand, there are a lot of readers who understand this, but don't understand the rationale for some of the obvious modifications. For example, I consider the beefing up of Arwen's lines in the first film to be a mistake, but I understand the rationale behind it - it's the 'love story' of the film. I consider the perversion of Faramir's character a mistake, but I cannot fathom any rationale behind it. It's just a simple fuck up.
I accept the need for changes for a myriad of reasons; dialog flow, character development, etc. etc. It seems to me that many changes in these films were made for nonsensical or irrational purposes.
I still appreciate the films, and give honor to Jackson for the incredible work he has given us. But I have questions I would ask him if given a chance.
That'd be great! This is the very last law we need to pass, and then the problem of untrustworthy software, vendors, and tactics will be solved!
Great! I am going to write my congressman and tell him to get busy writing the "Penultimate Fix for Unethical Software bill."
The very last, or the penultimate? Which will it be? We need to know, before we can draft the verbiage for this particular piece of legislation.
Sincerely,
US Congress
For what it's worth, there's effectively no such thing as corporate taxes; corporations charge as much money as they wish to make the profit they desire. If you increase the tax they have to pay, they increase the price of the goods or services they produce commensurately. Reducing the taxes they pay will have a reducing effect on prices as well, albeit somewhat slower - the 'float', so to speak. This holds true for monopolistic industries as well as those which have decent competition, because generally each competing company is paying the same level of taxes.