I can't help but find it humorous that as of the time this was posted, every last poster complaining about your subsidy idea is an AC.
Getting to the point, I agree that if the change is to be forced, there should be a subsidy. TVs are not strictly for entertainment. PBS is certainly one channel that isn't. Now if it was a subsidy for your VCR or DVD player, then I'd be agreeing with the ACs.
I've already covered this topic to some extent here.
Basically there is no way to get people to follow. You would assume that those who wish to follow that system would do so. Those that don't wish to follow it may leave at any time. The goal isn't to "convert people". The goal is to live according to one's wishes to be free from governmental and corporate control while doing one's part in bettering the community.
I suppose it should be everybodys birthday every day and we'll all just give everything people need to them. Sorry this doesn't work.
For those of us who agree to those terms as part of a social contract, it definitely would. I'd do things for people that I enjoy doing (fixing computers) while others could do things for me that I don't enjoy (laundry). If a large enough population agree to these terms then it will work.
Economics has to apply to the majority or it doesn't work.
I agree. Which is why I advocate that people who want to live according to the principles of libertarian socialism do so without disturbing anyone else. The socialism part is compatable with our current government (software released under the GPL/BSD are examples) so long as a critical mass of people is realized, but the libertarian part isn't. In a different post in this thread, I commented that I don't seek to make everyone like this form of government, but advocate those who want to live according to it to do so. This idea is similar to the Free State Project in New Hampshire.
Dictionary says: "To take (the property of another) without right or permission."
Now that leaves the definition of take. I'd assume that if I make a copy of, say, this page, no one would say that I'm taking it.
If that's the word he used, that's what he considers it: stealing.
He can use that word in that way all he wants, but copyright infringement isn't stealing. It is similar to stealing but isn't the same (just as copyrights and patents are similar, but not the same).
First, your question is a straw man. He never said anything about taking something without paying. He said he doesn't engage in copyright infringement (which isn't taking, but unauthorized copying) because he believes it is stealing.
He's wrong (in that he's using the wrong word), but certainly in good moral company by refusing to engage in the activity in question.
I assume then that you've never given any good or service to someone unless you were compensated for it.
The most powerful motivator there is is greed.
It may be for you (and probably the majority), but it surely isn't for me.
Capitalism uses this to benefit all.
With greed comes power. With that power, the powerful change the rules so that capitalism doesn't really mean capitalism anymore. Adam Smith is continuously rolling in his grave due to what passes for capitalism.
Well put. For me, libertarian socialism isn't a "one size fits all" deal. I don't see why everyone seems to think that form of government X and economic system Y has to be the same for all peoples.
For instance, if tomorrow the USA decided to stop enforcing property rights, I don't think we'd get the whole peace, love, and understanding trip. We'd get mass riots, murders, and general unrest. Libertarian socialism will not work for all people. I'd say that democratic republic + mildly regulated captialism would be what most people would pick if they could decide.
What I'm saying by putting that link in my sig is that I would like to live in that type of government/economy system. If you would not, then feel free to not live under that system. It is not my wish to turn the USA into a libertarian socialist "government". It is my wish that I could live by the principles espoused in that article.
Thanks for trolling, but as many wonder, I will explain.
Libertarian socialism is an aim. I aim for management of the common good in a manner that maximizes individual liberty and minimizes concentration of power or authority.
The principles of libertarian socialism make it partially incompatable with our current societial structure. Property rights are as such now that I could not give up all my possessions and continue to live any sort of reasonable existence. In t his case, living beats out political philosophy. Furthermore, under most forms of libertarian socialism, you can still use objects as your own, but you can't technically own them (see Kibbutz, Gift economy).
Yes, just like I'm "stealing"/. because I use AdBlock.
I'll repeat the copyleft infringement v. copyright infringment argument again.
Infringment of the GPL/BSD licenses is a worse offense because you are taking something open and making it closed, whereas straight copyright infringment is taking something closed and making it open.
So the WB owns the copyright to something which will never see the light of day... and why exactly should they get copyright protection for that?
If the objective of copyright is to increase the number of artistic works disseminated to the public and WB decides to not disseminate it, then what (moral and legal) reason do they have to keep the lid on this thing for the next 100 years or so? The government uses copyright to encourage dissemination of works. If you aren't going to disseminate your works, you shouldn't get any protection.
I must be living in a different reality where only a small number of people build their own PCs. If AMD has ~50% of the home-build market but only 10-20% of the overall market, the vast majority are ordering from Dell, HP, etc. This just seems odd to me as I know exactly 1 person (my mom) who didn't build their own PC.
Intel's share of this critical market currently counts for about 80 percent of worldwide sales by unit volume and 90 percent by revenue, giving it entrenched monopoly ownership and super-dominant market power.
I was under the assumption that most homemade PCs were AMD systems. Is that statistic including those?
Type in "toram" at startup and it will cache the CD in RAM. Of course, I don't know how much total data is on the DVD (1-2GB?), but I'm betting it would be quite a challenge getting all of that in your RAM and having enough left to run apps.
If TW is no longer a common carrier, third parties can sue for damages (not just Joe, but TW as well). Since TW and WB records have common ancestors, it would be interesting if a competiting record label would sue TW in order to gain an advantage by bleeding the TW to spite WB.
This could turn out to be a huge problem. If a label finds that one of Iime-Warner's users is downloading any songs, then they could use a suit to help hurt affiliated labels. I believe TW shares a common ancestor with WB. I could see Sony suing the pants off of TW in order to hurt WB.
The problem is that we do not know where the line is between "designed to infringe" and "could be used to infringe". Many BitTorrent clients are extremely close to this line.
I wonder if the MPAA could use this ruling sue ISPs to stop providing access to alt.binaries.mp3s (or similar groups) via their NNTP servers. It would seem that the data cached from that group is on the ISPs servers and the function of that group is solely to distribute copyrighted material.
In fact, because of the success of iTunes Music Store, it seems plausible that Apple, iPods, and other digital music players are almost definitely safe. Do people infringe with iPods? Of course. Does Apple know about it? Of course. But did they create the iPod to help people infringe? Nope, they created it to work with legal music.
I'm sure Apple knew that people would be putting music on the iPod that they had no right having. That had to be part of their strategy or else they would have designed it so that only FairPlay-encrypted AAC files would play on it.
Was it their intent to facilitate infringement? No. Did they use it to their advantage? You bet.
Slashdot Mirror
Only on slashdot will you get modded flamebait for answering a question put to you.
I can't help but find it humorous that as of the time this was posted, every last poster complaining about your subsidy idea is an AC.
Getting to the point, I agree that if the change is to be forced, there should be a subsidy. TVs are not strictly for entertainment. PBS is certainly one channel that isn't. Now if it was a subsidy for your VCR or DVD player, then I'd be agreeing with the ACs.
Pedantic, yes. But it doesn't amount to the same thing, IMO.
I'm speaking from a moral point of view. If want to talk about the strict legal aspects then you are absolutely right, there is no difference.
I've already covered this topic to some extent here.
Basically there is no way to get people to follow. You would assume that those who wish to follow that system would do so. Those that don't wish to follow it may leave at any time. The goal isn't to "convert people". The goal is to live according to one's wishes to be free from governmental and corporate control while doing one's part in bettering the community.
I suppose it should be everybodys birthday every day and we'll all just give everything people need to them. Sorry this doesn't work.
For those of us who agree to those terms as part of a social contract, it definitely would. I'd do things for people that I enjoy doing (fixing computers) while others could do things for me that I don't enjoy (laundry). If a large enough population agree to these terms then it will work.
Economics has to apply to the majority or it doesn't work.
I agree. Which is why I advocate that people who want to live according to the principles of libertarian socialism do so without disturbing anyone else. The socialism part is compatable with our current government (software released under the GPL/BSD are examples) so long as a critical mass of people is realized, but the libertarian part isn't. In a different post in this thread, I commented that I don't seek to make everyone like this form of government, but advocate those who want to live according to it to do so. This idea is similar to the Free State Project in New Hampshire.
Dictionary says:
"To take (the property of another) without right or permission."
Now that leaves the definition of take. I'd assume that if I make a copy of, say, this page, no one would say that I'm taking it.
If that's the word he used, that's what he considers it: stealing.
He can use that word in that way all he wants, but copyright infringement isn't stealing. It is similar to stealing but isn't the same (just as copyrights and patents are similar, but not the same).
First, your question is a straw man. He never said anything about taking something without paying. He said he doesn't engage in copyright infringement (which isn't taking, but unauthorized copying) because he believes it is stealing.
He's wrong (in that he's using the wrong word), but certainly in good moral company by refusing to engage in the activity in question.
Without motivation people wont do anything.
I assume then that you've never given any good or service to someone unless you were compensated for it.
The most powerful motivator there is is greed.
It may be for you (and probably the majority), but it surely isn't for me.
Capitalism uses this to benefit all.
With greed comes power. With that power, the powerful change the rules so that capitalism doesn't really mean capitalism anymore. Adam Smith is continuously rolling in his grave due to what passes for capitalism.
Well put. For me, libertarian socialism isn't a "one size fits all" deal. I don't see why everyone seems to think that form of government X and economic system Y has to be the same for all peoples.
For instance, if tomorrow the USA decided to stop enforcing property rights, I don't think we'd get the whole peace, love, and understanding trip. We'd get mass riots, murders, and general unrest. Libertarian socialism will not work for all people. I'd say that democratic republic + mildly regulated captialism would be what most people would pick if they could decide.
What I'm saying by putting that link in my sig is that I would like to live in that type of government/economy system. If you would not, then feel free to not live under that system. It is not my wish to turn the USA into a libertarian socialist "government". It is my wish that I could live by the principles espoused in that article.
Thanks for trolling, but as many wonder, I will explain.
Libertarian socialism is an aim. I aim for management of the common good in a manner that maximizes individual liberty and minimizes concentration of power or authority.
The principles of libertarian socialism make it partially incompatable with our current societial structure. Property rights are as such now that I could not give up all my possessions and continue to live any sort of reasonable existence. In t his case, living beats out political philosophy. Furthermore, under most forms of libertarian socialism, you can still use objects as your own, but you can't technically own them (see Kibbutz, Gift economy).
Yes, just like I'm "stealing" /. because I use AdBlock.
I'll repeat the copyleft infringement v. copyright infringment argument again.
Infringment of the GPL/BSD licenses is a worse offense because you are taking something open and making it closed, whereas straight copyright infringment is taking something closed and making it open.
So the WB owns the copyright to something which will never see the light of day ... and why exactly should they get copyright protection for that?
If the objective of copyright is to increase the number of artistic works disseminated to the public and WB decides to not disseminate it, then what (moral and legal) reason do they have to keep the lid on this thing for the next 100 years or so? The government uses copyright to encourage dissemination of works. If you aren't going to disseminate your works, you shouldn't get any protection.
You can see my error in that I:
1) Don't have a laptop
2) Don't use a business computer
3) Nearly all my friends homebuild.
I must be living in a different reality where only a small number of people build their own PCs. If AMD has ~50% of the home-build market but only 10-20% of the overall market, the vast majority are ordering from Dell, HP, etc. This just seems odd to me as I know exactly 1 person (my mom) who didn't build their own PC.
Intel's share of this critical market currently counts for about 80 percent of worldwide sales by unit volume and 90 percent by revenue, giving it entrenched monopoly ownership and super-dominant market power.
I was under the assumption that most homemade PCs were AMD systems. Is that statistic including those?
Correct.
Type in "toram" at startup and it will cache the CD in RAM. Of course, I don't know how much total data is on the DVD (1-2GB?), but I'm betting it would be quite a challenge getting all of that in your RAM and having enough left to run apps.
And major corporations have lots of cash.
;-).
Apparently working from opposite ends to come to the same conclusion has wasted our time
I believe you totally missed the point.
If TW is no longer a common carrier, third parties can sue for damages (not just Joe, but TW as well). Since TW and WB records have common ancestors, it would be interesting if a competiting record label would sue TW in order to gain an advantage by bleeding the TW to spite WB.
What a coincidence!!! I use yours!
It will be designated whatever will make Verizon the most profit. Guaranteed.
This could turn out to be a huge problem. If a label finds that one of Iime-Warner's users is downloading any songs, then they could use a suit to help hurt affiliated labels. I believe TW shares a common ancestor with WB. I could see Sony suing the pants off of TW in order to hurt WB.
Thanks for playing semantics. You knew exactly what he meant by 'corporation'. He didn't mean any corporation. He meant major corporations.
The problem is that we do not know where the line is between "designed to infringe" and "could be used to infringe". Many BitTorrent clients are extremely close to this line.
I wonder if the MPAA could use this ruling sue ISPs to stop providing access to alt.binaries.mp3s (or similar groups) via their NNTP servers. It would seem that the data cached from that group is on the ISPs servers and the function of that group is solely to distribute copyrighted material.
In fact, because of the success of iTunes Music Store, it seems plausible that Apple, iPods, and other digital music players are almost definitely safe. Do people infringe with iPods? Of course. Does Apple know about it? Of course. But did they create the iPod to help people infringe? Nope, they created it to work with legal music.
I'm sure Apple knew that people would be putting music on the iPod that they had no right having. That had to be part of their strategy or else they would have designed it so that only FairPlay-encrypted AAC files would play on it.
Was it their intent to facilitate infringement? No. Did they use it to their advantage? You bet.