There isn't any sort of inherent natural law that says artists have to make money from releasing their works. I have friends in a local indie band. They don't make a dime off of their CD sales (in fact, I believe they're in the red). They make a bit of extra income doing shows. They aren't out to make money selling their works. They do it because they love their art.
Your "2)" sounds like what I believe a better system for rewarding artists for releasing their works should be. There needn't be a single patron, but several patrons to pay artists to be able to create full-time. Notice the mass of people on sourceforge who donate to Freenet, Azureus, etc.
The capitalist model lowers the barriers to entry while granting the artist a measure of independence and security. It seems to have worked pretty well.
As far as our current system, which involves a government-sponsored monopoly, I highly doubt most of our libertarian friends would agree that capitalism is synonamyous with monopolies (especially government-sponsored ones). The system was more effective when works were continually entering the public domain. Now it seems the government knows that the only capital we have left is so-called intellectual property since we don't manufacture much except for heavy machinery.
Getting a bit off-topic, basing our economy on intellectual capital is very dangerous as it only takes one country (China) to ignore our IP protection laws in order to destroy us economically.
We want to ensure its's possible to make a profit from creative works. Online file sharing should probably be discouraged, or at least not strongly encouraged.
I could care less about profits from creative works. Copyright law doesn't exist to make people money. It is to increase the amount of information available to the citizenry. The idea is that if you give someone a monopoly on disseminating their works, they will be more likely to disseminate said works. What needs to occur is to find out what length of copyright will allow for the dessemination of the most works into the public domain, wether that be 10 days or 10 years.
Online file sharing should be strongly encouraged. If P2P file-sharing falls out of favor, we'll go back to the days when only someone who can afford to buy web space in order to disseminate their program. File sharing takes the power of information out of the hands of large conglomerates and gives it back to the people, where it rightly belongs.
Slashdotters have often complained about there not being a commercial alternative to illegally downloading television shows.
I maintain that downloading TV-shows, so long as they are derived from over-the-air broadasts, is legal. I'm simply time and format shifting content that is already being beamed to my TV antenna. Regarding ads, leave them in; I don't care. I'm a broke college student, so its not like I have wads of disposable income burning a hole in my pocket. Even then, I never signed any contract saying I was going to watch them anyway.
For something that you imply happens constantly, do you not have a single example where actual, un-punished felony bribery has resulted in a law?
Nice straw man. I'm not talking about bribes, I'm talking about campaign contributions. The laws I, and probably many people believe were bought (with 'legal' campaign contributions) include, but are not limited to: *S. 5 *S. 256 *S. 167 *H.R. 3045 *H.R. 6 *H.R. 3
And such coersion pleases you? You're good with financing religious fanatics, parties promoting pedophiles, parties in favor of reinstating slavery, or shooting illegal immigrants on sight?
Yes, so long as they have enough support to get on the ballot (those laws need to be changed as well, but that is a different story). Obviously every last person can't be on the ballot as we'd have people running illegitmate campaigns.
Instead of holding your nose and tolerating such nonsense yourself, and forcing me to pay for it too, how about you support the people you like, as you see fit, and I do the same?
No, I like it better my way.
Rather than letting the marketplace of ideas attract voices, support, and votes, you'd artificially inflate the credibility of crackpots, would-be despots, and (I begin to see you angle here) those trying to prop up demonstrably sinister ideologies like communism.
I'm the one letting the "marketplace of ideas" attract votes. You'd rather the marketplace be the one that attracts votes. And it must be said that you've seemed to think I believe any last person who feels the need to run for office should get the public money. I'm only for it for people who can get on the ballot. I didn't make that clear, and I apologize for the error.
As a socialist, you're proably feeling the discomfort of being routinely unable to convince a lot of people that your world view is a useful, productive, and liberating one (since it's not).
To be absolutely correct, I'm a libertarian socialist. That is the final goal, but it must be implemented via democratic socialism.
Socialists are doing quite well in Spain at the moment. The Left Party in Germany ended up causing the SPD and CDU to form a grand coalition.
Forcing me to support a candidate that thinks Stalin had it right is... Stalinesque on the face of it.
Keep it up, but I'm not taking the bait. Once again, you're supporting the idea that money shouldn't matter. Only ideas should matter. For the record, I've never supported Stalin.
So why are you so worried about giving mine to people that I don't think - because of their own expressed opinions - deserve my financial support? You're trying to have it both ways.
And you're parsing semantics. In our society, in order to get your voice heard on a large scale, you need to be able to pay others to get your message out (TV, internet, radio, etc.). And I'm sure you know, the more anything is repeated, the more people accept it as truth. I'd love it if this wasn't the case, but it is. The only other way to implement this is to require media outlets to provide equal time to all candidates. So, either you give the people money to buy media time, or you force the media companies to give them time. The two are indistinguishable for me.
So, a politician that bases their entire framework on bad science is equally deserving of my support?
Yes. He's obviously wrong as we have proven the scientific method, but he has the right to have his political opinion heard. The theory of gravity can be proven. That George Bush is the best candidate cannot be.
Let's say one candidate proclaims that by taking 100% of my income and giving it to people with any amount less than I have in the bank will improve everyone's life, and another says that it will not. No part of your critical thinking skills can find an objecti
There's no reason I shouldn't be able to form a group that wants to collectively support a ballot initiative, a party, or a candidate - and there's no reason that group shouldn't be able to reach into their own pockets, or take donations from other like-minded people to make sure that the group's message is heard, and their purpose achieved.
Strike "candidate" and "ballot initiative" and I agree. The public interest in free and fair elections overrides your right to essentially buy laws.
Any candidate that runs, and uses my dollars, is getting coerced support from me.
Yes, they are. All of them equally.
I don't want my dollars to suggest that Neo-Nazis, or Anarchists, or any other irrational candidates are equally valuable on the national (or local) stage. They are not. That's my opinion, but you would prevent me from expressing that opinion [...]
Yes, they are. It seems that you are afraid people would vote for Neo-Nazis, Anarchists, or other "irrational" candidates if they had any money (to quote you) "to make sure that [their] group's message is heard, and their purpose achieved". Shutting out so-called "irrational" candidates is definitely an egregious violation of the 1st Amendment, moreso than curbing campaign contributions is (if I even believed it was). In our election system, money is required to get a group's message out. By making all elections publicly financed, all candidates compete on message alone, which, I would hope, is the way you wish it to be.
I don't have a problem with my government being ran by fascists or any other group so long as they represent the true will of the people (while protecting certain minority interests enshrined in the Constitution). I have a hard time believing our governments represent the will of the people.
I'm not preventing you from expressing your opinion. As was covered before, you do that at the ballot box. Money has nothing to do with opinions.
Which explains the moral relativism [...] As far as relativism goes, I'm the one that believes all opinions regarding politics are equally valid (obviously in the world of science, all opinions are not). That's about as objective as you can get.
Of course interest groups will keep lobbying, but their influence will be diminshed. The only thing they could actually do is withdraw an endorsment. I don't mind pandering to groups of people. I do mind pandering to money.
So, instead of me getting to choose how I want my voice to be heard, you're going to force me to back a candidate?
Money isn't speech. Giving money to a candidate is a bribe. Your voice will be heard at the ballot box. Furthermore, you're not backing any candidate in publicly financed elections. You're backing the idea that money shouldn't make a difference in an election; a politican's platform should be the deciding factor. You're backing democratic elections, and yes, I don't mind forcing you to do that.
Excellent idea, comrade!
Yes, I'm a socialist. Have at, although Comrade is out of style these days. I suggest "pinko" or "terrorist".
The government siezes taxes by force. If you don't think so, then don't pay your taxes for a year or two and see what happens.
As has been said before, if you do not agree with the contract, you are free to leave.
I pay taxes because the consequences of not paying are imprisonment and financial ruin.
I support your position to be allowed to opt out of paying taxes. Of course, you will be charged for using the public sidewalks and roads. You won't be allowed into the library without paying a fee. If you need an ambulance, the first thing the 911 operator will do is ask for a credit card number.
No one wants to pay taxes, but everyone wants the services provided by those taxes. Now I'll agree with you that your taxes are probably too high (or you don't get a good tradeoff).
No shit. Many gave to both Bush and Kerry last election cycle. The only justifiable rationale for that is that the donors are hedging their bets, and making sure they've bought the winner, no matter who that winner is.
Both sides have their large donors. If you eliminate limits on campaign contributions only those large donors will have any pull on the candidates' platforms. Is that what you really want?
I believe that all contributions should be illegal and elections should be publicly financed. Money isn't free speech, and bribing a congressman isn't an issue of liberty. I believe elections should be about ideas, not media exposure. I'd like to see how different the political landscape would be if no one was owned by the *AA's, oil interests, etc. The only way to eliminate corruption is to eliminate the money.
Actually what happens nowadays is that if the congressman is not representing the will of his/her constituency, he/she simply changes his/her constituency.
The voter does not select the congressman, the congressman selects the voter.
Well put, Doc (especially regarding the 'talking points', but lets get back to reality for a moment.
Out of all those senators, Burns, Ensign, Cantwell, and Nelson are the only ones who are remotely defeatable. And if Cantwell and Nelson are defeated, they'll be replaced by someone with an "R" next to their name. Even then, there aren't enough people who would change their votes for a person based on an issue as non-visible as digital rights/broadcast flag/software patents/etc.
What really needs to happen is for us/.ers to start running for office under libertarian/green/independent tickets. Minor party and independent members are inherently unbribable due to the fact that if they were, they'd have sold out to one of the major parties long ago.
Of course, the chance of nerds running for office is about the same as all of the above being defeated in next year's election.
You are certainly correct if this was 9/10/2001. After 9/11 and the anthrax scare, most congressmen ask their constituents to use email or call their offices since snail mail literally takes weeks to be processed and delivered.
I would say to be most effective, you should call, fax, and email in that order.
Your theory has merit, but it fails to account for catastrophic injuries. I would direct you to the movie "John Q", which is an incredibly extreme example, but an example nonetheless. Under free-market health care if you can't pay, you die (or an extreme case, you end up paying for it for the rest of your life).
If you're in a severe accident because a drunk driver hit you, do you want a hospital to decline you because of insufficent funds or bad credit?
Does anyone know the usage of the word "punter" in the article, though? I've heard the root word "punt" in several different ways in the last year or so when I had only heard it in the American Football context.
It is certainly a CD so long as its 120mm in diameter and all the other usual disc-shaped properties. It is NOT an audio cd as it doesn't adhere to the Red Book audio CD standard.
Correct. This was due to the fact that Clinton ran some potentional nominees past Orrin Hatch (the judiciary chairman -- or possibly ranking member, I can't remember which).
Apparently, this nomination came at the behest of Harry Reid, so assuming this was a consensus nominee like Ginsburg, you can expect Miers to see very little opposition. In fact, based on what I've heard, many conservative Republicans are hopping mad about this appointment. I'd expect more opposition from people like Brownback than Boxer.
Slashdot Mirror
Remarks have been made. Of course, none of them were humorous.
There isn't any sort of inherent natural law that says artists have to make money from releasing their works. I have friends in a local indie band. They don't make a dime off of their CD sales (in fact, I believe they're in the red). They make a bit of extra income doing shows. They aren't out to make money selling their works. They do it because they love their art.
Your "2)" sounds like what I believe a better system for rewarding artists for releasing their works should be. There needn't be a single patron, but several patrons to pay artists to be able to create full-time. Notice the mass of people on sourceforge who donate to Freenet, Azureus, etc.
The capitalist model lowers the barriers to entry while granting the artist a measure of independence and security. It seems to have worked pretty well.
As far as our current system, which involves a government-sponsored monopoly, I highly doubt most of our libertarian friends would agree that capitalism is synonamyous with monopolies (especially government-sponsored ones). The system was more effective when works were continually entering the public domain. Now it seems the government knows that the only capital we have left is so-called intellectual property since we don't manufacture much except for heavy machinery.
Getting a bit off-topic, basing our economy on intellectual capital is very dangerous as it only takes one country (China) to ignore our IP protection laws in order to destroy us economically.
I disagree with these points:
We want to ensure its's possible to make a profit from creative works.
Online file sharing should probably be discouraged, or at least not strongly encouraged.
I could care less about profits from creative works. Copyright law doesn't exist to make people money. It is to increase the amount of information available to the citizenry. The idea is that if you give someone a monopoly on disseminating their works, they will be more likely to disseminate said works. What needs to occur is to find out what length of copyright will allow for the dessemination of the most works into the public domain, wether that be 10 days or 10 years.
Online file sharing should be strongly encouraged. If P2P file-sharing falls out of favor, we'll go back to the days when only someone who can afford to buy web space in order to disseminate their program. File sharing takes the power of information out of the hands of large conglomerates and gives it back to the people, where it rightly belongs.
U.S.S.M.?
Massachusetts is a commonwealth, not a state.
Well the idea was that I'm going to skip over them anyway. If DRM makes it so that I can't, there's always the analog hole.
Slashdotters have often complained about there not being a commercial alternative to illegally downloading television shows.
I maintain that downloading TV-shows, so long as they are derived from over-the-air broadasts, is legal. I'm simply time and format shifting content that is already being beamed to my TV antenna. Regarding ads, leave them in; I don't care. I'm a broke college student, so its not like I have wads of disposable income burning a hole in my pocket. Even then, I never signed any contract saying I was going to watch them anyway.
Well, religion might not be bringing science down, but it certainly seems to be doing a number on grammar and punctuation.
Its a good thing work is slow today...
For something that you imply happens constantly, do you not have a single example where actual, un-punished felony bribery has resulted in a law?
Nice straw man. I'm not talking about bribes, I'm talking about campaign contributions. The laws I, and probably many people believe were bought (with 'legal' campaign contributions) include, but are not limited to:
*S. 5
*S. 256
*S. 167
*H.R. 3045
*H.R. 6
*H.R. 3
And such coersion pleases you? You're good with financing religious fanatics, parties promoting pedophiles, parties in favor of reinstating slavery, or shooting illegal immigrants on sight?
Yes, so long as they have enough support to get on the ballot (those laws need to be changed as well, but that is a different story). Obviously every last person can't be on the ballot as we'd have people running illegitmate campaigns.
Instead of holding your nose and tolerating such nonsense yourself, and forcing me to pay for it too, how about you support the people you like, as you see fit, and I do the same?
No, I like it better my way.
Rather than letting the marketplace of ideas attract voices, support, and votes, you'd artificially inflate the credibility of crackpots, would-be despots, and (I begin to see you angle here) those trying to prop up demonstrably sinister ideologies like communism.
I'm the one letting the "marketplace of ideas" attract votes. You'd rather the marketplace be the one that attracts votes. And it must be said that you've seemed to think I believe any last person who feels the need to run for office should get the public money. I'm only for it for people who can get on the ballot. I didn't make that clear, and I apologize for the error.
As a socialist, you're proably feeling the discomfort of being routinely unable to convince a lot of people that your world view is a useful, productive, and liberating one (since it's not).
To be absolutely correct, I'm a libertarian socialist. That is the final goal, but it must be implemented via democratic socialism.
Socialists are doing quite well in Spain at the moment. The Left Party in Germany ended up causing the SPD and CDU to form a grand coalition.
Forcing me to support a candidate that thinks Stalin had it right is... Stalinesque on the face of it.
Keep it up, but I'm not taking the bait. Once again, you're supporting the idea that money shouldn't matter. Only ideas should matter. For the record, I've never supported Stalin.
So why are you so worried about giving mine to people that I don't think - because of their own expressed opinions - deserve my financial support? You're trying to have it both ways.
And you're parsing semantics.
In our society, in order to get your voice heard on a large scale, you need to be able to pay others to get your message out (TV, internet, radio, etc.). And I'm sure you know, the more anything is repeated, the more people accept it as truth. I'd love it if this wasn't the case, but it is. The only other way to implement this is to require media outlets to provide equal time to all candidates. So, either you give the people money to buy media time, or you force the media companies to give them time. The two are indistinguishable for me.
So, a politician that bases their entire framework on bad science is equally deserving of my support?
Yes. He's obviously wrong as we have proven the scientific method, but he has the right to have his political opinion heard. The theory of gravity can be proven. That George Bush is the best candidate cannot be.
Let's say one candidate proclaims that by taking 100% of my income and giving it to people with any amount less than I have in the bank will improve everyone's life, and another says that it will not. No part of your critical thinking skills can find an objecti
Great!
I'm going to start getting a bunch of ads about campaigns in Chicago! [i've got Speakeasy DSL in Dayton, and Chicago is my gateway]
There's no reason I shouldn't be able to form a group that wants to collectively support a ballot initiative, a party, or a candidate - and there's no reason that group shouldn't be able to reach into their own pockets, or take donations from other like-minded people to make sure that the group's message is heard, and their purpose achieved.
Strike "candidate" and "ballot initiative" and I agree. The public interest in free and fair elections overrides your right to essentially buy laws.
Any candidate that runs, and uses my dollars, is getting coerced support from me.
Yes, they are. All of them equally.
I don't want my dollars to suggest that Neo-Nazis, or Anarchists, or any other irrational candidates are equally valuable on the national (or local) stage. They are not. That's my opinion, but you would prevent me from expressing that opinion [...]
Yes, they are. It seems that you are afraid people would vote for Neo-Nazis, Anarchists, or other "irrational" candidates if they had any money (to quote you) "to make sure that [their] group's message is heard, and their purpose achieved". Shutting out so-called "irrational" candidates is definitely an egregious violation of the 1st Amendment, moreso than curbing campaign contributions is (if I even believed it was). In our election system, money is required to get a group's message out. By making all elections publicly financed, all candidates compete on message alone, which, I would hope, is the way you wish it to be.
I don't have a problem with my government being ran by fascists or any other group so long as they represent the true will of the people (while protecting certain minority interests enshrined in the Constitution). I have a hard time believing our governments represent the will of the people.
I'm not preventing you from expressing your opinion. As was covered before, you do that at the ballot box. Money has nothing to do with opinions.
Which explains the moral relativism [...]
As far as relativism goes, I'm the one that believes all opinions regarding politics are equally valid (obviously in the world of science, all opinions are not). That's about as objective as you can get.
Of course interest groups will keep lobbying, but their influence will be diminshed. The only thing they could actually do is withdraw an endorsment. I don't mind pandering to groups of people. I do mind pandering to money.
So, instead of me getting to choose how I want my voice to be heard, you're going to force me to back a candidate?
Money isn't speech. Giving money to a candidate is a bribe. Your voice will be heard at the ballot box. Furthermore, you're not backing any candidate in publicly financed elections. You're backing the idea that money shouldn't make a difference in an election; a politican's platform should be the deciding factor. You're backing democratic elections, and yes, I don't mind forcing you to do that.
Excellent idea, comrade!
Yes, I'm a socialist. Have at, although Comrade is out of style these days. I suggest "pinko" or "terrorist".
The government siezes taxes by force. If you don't think so, then don't pay your taxes for a year or two and see what happens.
As has been said before, if you do not agree with the contract, you are free to leave.
I pay taxes because the consequences of not paying are imprisonment and financial ruin.
I support your position to be allowed to opt out of paying taxes. Of course, you will be charged for using the public sidewalks and roads. You won't be allowed into the library without paying a fee. If you need an ambulance, the first thing the 911 operator will do is ask for a credit card number.
No one wants to pay taxes, but everyone wants the services provided by those taxes. Now I'll agree with you that your taxes are probably too high (or you don't get a good tradeoff).
No shit. Many gave to both Bush and Kerry last election cycle. The only justifiable rationale for that is that the donors are hedging their bets, and making sure they've bought the winner, no matter who that winner is.
Both sides have their large donors. If you eliminate limits on campaign contributions only those large donors will have any pull on the candidates' platforms. Is that what you really want?
I believe that all contributions should be illegal and elections should be publicly financed. Money isn't free speech, and bribing a congressman isn't an issue of liberty. I believe elections should be about ideas, not media exposure. I'd like to see how different the political landscape would be if no one was owned by the *AA's, oil interests, etc. The only way to eliminate corruption is to eliminate the money.
Actually what happens nowadays is that if the congressman is not representing the will of his/her constituency, he/she simply changes his/her constituency.
The voter does not select the congressman, the congressman selects the voter.
Well put, Doc (especially regarding the 'talking points', but lets get back to reality for a moment.
/.ers to start running for office under libertarian/green/independent tickets. Minor party and independent members are inherently unbribable due to the fact that if they were, they'd have sold out to one of the major parties long ago.
Out of all those senators, Burns, Ensign, Cantwell, and Nelson are the only ones who are remotely defeatable. And if Cantwell and Nelson are defeated, they'll be replaced by someone with an "R" next to their name. Even then, there aren't enough people who would change their votes for a person based on an issue as non-visible as digital rights/broadcast flag/software patents/etc.
What really needs to happen is for us
Of course, the chance of nerds running for office is about the same as all of the above being defeated in next year's election.
Two minutes earlier and you'd have the +2, Funny.
You are certainly correct if this was 9/10/2001. After 9/11 and the anthrax scare, most congressmen ask their constituents to use email or call their offices since snail mail literally takes weeks to be processed and delivered.
I would say to be most effective, you should call, fax, and email in that order.
Your theory has merit, but it fails to account for catastrophic injuries. I would direct you to the movie "John Q", which is an incredibly extreme example, but an example nonetheless. Under free-market health care if you can't pay, you die (or an extreme case, you end up paying for it for the rest of your life).
If you're in a severe accident because a drunk driver hit you, do you want a hospital to decline you because of insufficent funds or bad credit?
I've found yum to be quite good. There are a few GUI extensions that make updating idiot-proof.
Now if I could get a decent driver for my wireless card, I'd probably boot FC4 exclusively.
Just like the concern for the people in the Sedan.
Yes, those poor people, in their luxury Sedan. I'm concerned that they couldn't buy an H2.
Does anyone know the usage of the word "punter" in the article, though? I've heard the root word "punt" in several different ways in the last year or so when I had only heard it in the American Football context.
Upon further review, our friend "The English Language" is to blame.
The disc itself is called a "compact disc" as well as the actual Red Book variant containing digitized audio (16bits @ 44.1 KHz, of course).
Incorrect (but I know what you're trying to say).
It is certainly a CD so long as its 120mm in diameter and all the other usual disc-shaped properties. It is NOT an audio cd as it doesn't adhere to the Red Book audio CD standard.
Correct. This was due to the fact that Clinton ran some potentional nominees past Orrin Hatch (the judiciary chairman -- or possibly ranking member, I can't remember which).
Apparently, this nomination came at the behest of Harry Reid, so assuming this was a consensus nominee like Ginsburg, you can expect Miers to see very little opposition. In fact, based on what I've heard, many conservative Republicans are hopping mad about this appointment. I'd expect more opposition from people like Brownback than Boxer.