I don't have an ideology, but I explain this by the fact that current market offers are Good Enough for most people, and more importantly: most people don't care.
As long as you take whatever media the corporate world pushes on you, you're happy with whatever the new technology of the day is.
Speaking for myself: I refuse to buy DVDs, because region-coded ones won't run on my machine. I refuse to buy DRM-music at iTunes etc., because CDs are a better deal. And so on. There's nothing to explain. Whoever wants iTunes or region-coded DVDs can get them. I odn't have to.
That's like saying that Taco Bell is forcing beans on you, because they stuff beans INTO THE FOOD YOU BUY! Oh my God, I'm so sorry for you...
* You don't have to buy all that hardware. * You have no god-given right to DRM-free hardware but: * lacking any fascist regulation of the marketplace, I'm sure that if all mainstream vendors go DRM, there'll be someone else to offer DRM-free hardware (or rather hardware, that will also play DRM-free content, and that will allow you to turn of the TCPA chip). It'll cost more than $300 per PC, and it might have less than 4GHz, but it'd probably be very usable, if you're happy to live without Windows.
I wouldn't mind AT ALL if government intervened to enforce network neutrality.
The problem with government intervention, though, is that it can't be stopped. Once government make one internet intervention, it will make more - and the next time it's rather probable that it won't be something that helps you to get uncensored web access, but it'll probably by something backed by Big Industry (or when was the last time any government intervention was really pro-people and contra-industry??).
Austrian (anarchist) free-market theory doesn't assume that consumers have good information. It only states that whenever a consumer trades his money for something, it has to be because it's his decision. The economist (because he's an economist, not some judge) CANNOT say if that's good or bad, because he doesn't judge. But the consumer is happy, or he wouldn't buy.
False advertising would be fraud, and would be discovered by the consumer later, if the consumer at all cares about the product. (If the consumer only bought his iPod because it can store data, he doesn't care if Apple makes some false claims like "it can play WMA".)
So obviously lies aren't permitted, because they constitute fraud. When something I bought doesn't do what it was advertised to do, then I have grounds to sue the company.
I don't quite understand where you get the idea that provable false advertising would be legal. AFAIK it's not, because the consumer has a right to a product that works *as advertised*.
Sure, but if they do, then that's because they *prefer* the recording contract to retaining their copy-rights. It's a voluntary choice, even though often it might be a bad one.
I'm not informed enough to judge if such a choice is good or bad. It's not my business, literally.
Some artists (I think number increasing) completely sidestep the Music Mafia and I'm sure there are also more and more indie management companies that care for these artists and support them.
Well, I'm not sure about all those un-CDs. Every CD I bought so far is perfectly rippable, which means it's compliant enough;)
Another interesting fact is that those un-CDs have been available in Europe for years, but the USA only got them now. For some reason they didn't sell well before... (I'd like to know why!)
For the MPAA & co: agreed. We certainly need to stop government enacting more fascist measures to "protect" an industry that's failing to listen to its clients.
Well, I hate the DMCA, but it's new to me that it forces everybody to sell only DRM.
I mentioned some examples of DRM-free music, and there are numerous DRM-free devices for sale to play free content, and the DMCA doesn't even disallow that.
Get real, man. If what you said were reality, then it the reality - many people buying and listening to unencumbered media - wouldn't at all be possible.
Of course I do. The DMCA is not only harmful to science and innovation, it's quite fascist about lots of things.
But even if it weren't that bad, I'd oppose it, because what I'm able to do with media I buy is none of their concern, as long as I don't violate their copyright.
Wrong. Just because every device you might like at the moment has DRM by some evil corporation, doesn't mean that they "force DRM into every device able to render [...] any typo of content."
You're the one who makes claims outside of reality. I never claimed the market does solve everything, as you say. I merely said that there's no real problem in this case, except some people who whine about not being able to buy their Britney Spears without DRM.
Maybe you'll need those devices to play media released by the same cartel, but that doesn't mean that there aren't other devices available.
You're not talking about competition, but about perfect competition, which is a wet dream from an economist's book. It's not about reality.
I know it's sad that CD prices don't fall, but that's because every artist has a *monopoly* - like it or not - on his works. If you don't think their music is worth $15, just don't buy it. But again: there's not moral reason for any legal intervention. Just because someone thinks something is too pricey doesn't mean he should be king.
If you want Indie music, or Indie operating systems, you'll actually see that - because of competition - their prices are much better than those for mainstream systems or mainstream music. Take your choice.
In fact the market DID sort out software since '85. That's because the market isn't something that falls from the sky, but it consists of individual acting human beings.
At some point some human beings (many inspired by RMS and the FSF I think) decided that they *wanted* Free Software, and that's why it happened. No magic, no legal intervention, just people and the market.
I like the FSF in most respects, but DRM is just another technology where consumers (yes, that's you and me) have to simply refuse current offers (I never buy DRM music, only CDs). The market already HAS sorted it out. There's Magnatune, there's eMusic. And for everybody who just *needs* mainstream music, well there's only mainstream providers like Napster or iTunes, but I think they're gonna have to live with it. Tough Shit.
There's absolutely nothing that would justify any legal intervention or any other meddling with the market in this case. Nobody is forcing DRM on you.
EU is actually moving [...] from a feudal economy [...] into a competitive European market
You still believe in the Easter bunny, don't you?
(this German here wonders)
I'd say the exact opposite. Government regulations get ever more helpful for Big Enterprise, while the smaller players suffer more and more under the extensive regulations.
I also prefer the runner-up. Collapsable whatevers? What for? When I don't care about a story, pressing space or pd-down is certainly much easier and faster than collapsing the article I don't like... And the sidebar - why would I ever collapse it? It only takes up one screen vertically (and not much horizontally, thank $DEITY).
Add Standard ML to the list. Everyone should know about functional programming with variant datatypes.
It also has a good book on compilers, another topic any serious CS guy should know about (Andrew Appel's Modern Compiler Implementation in ML; avoid the Java one, it only shows how to get the ML stuff done in Java with three times the code).
Alternatively some people prefer Haskell, which grows more and more popular, and arguably has a nicer syntax.
Ok, thanks for the correction. I'm happy to hear that Turkey has such a culture, and that its soldiers protect the foundations/constitution of their country. I'm afraid though, that not all soldiers in all countries are like that.
I don't think all of government is utterly evil, but I think that because checks and balances are too few and too weak in many places/countries, government continually expands its power, often in ways not really backed by the People.
Agreed, but it's still the best protection there is.
Also, a decentralized force of citizens (of which nobody knows where they might lurk; in which house there might be armed people) has some advantages.
Of course the best thing to do is still to educated people to stand united against oppressive government actions. It'd also be great if more people were informed about the constitution (in the USA) and what government has no business to do.
I agree that government isn't all bad people, but I think it attracts them more, and that the majority are either selfish and evil, or don't do enough to resist the evils between them.
There's something like a coup d'état, but I think that's usually not an act of liberation, but an act of claiming dictatorship. So I stand by my opinion, that the military will never liberate the people from oppressive government. (Ok, there might be exceptions, but I don't think they're likely).
I'm not American, but German, but since most/. readers are American, it's easier to refer to their system. Of course in Germany too any soldier has the right to resist, when he receives an illegal order (but OTOH they're not supposed to think, but to follow order...). Still, in this respect I'm rather pessimist; I don't think there would be much desertion.
OTOH, I agree that most normal soldiers wouldn't simply shoot at citizens in most cases. But in most cases of oppression they don't have to. Their mere presence/threat is usually enough to enforce compliance (like in the old Eastern Germany/Soviet bloc).
The problem with the government not breaking the law is usually that government both enforces the law (police, monopoly of violence) and dictates/decides what the law is. That's also why (both in the USA and in Germany) the constitution isn't really 100% respected anymore. Government power can get away with about anything (interestingly, here the German system, paranoidly set up after Hitler, has some advantages, we have some more checks and balances I think). Have you never had to do with police officers abusing their power? Oh, and you can never sue them, because they always come in twos (and will both testify against you, which is enough in Germany 2:1).
You must be young, an idealist, or both. The state isn't comprised of Good people. In all probability government attracts far more bad, power-hungry people than it attracts good people.
The military never overthrows a government, even if the commands given it might be illegal or immoral (the rule usually is: obey or be shot). Just go read a history book on that one.
Democracy cannot guarantee that people have the power. The only thing that keeps current government from going totally fascist is that people would rise up against them (so in a sense there's a democratic element that prevents state dominion). As soon as the military/police power is strong enough (and enough Americans stop owning guns), they can and will go further.
Of course wiring is expensive, and somebody has to pay for it. The difference is that right now that's being done with taxation, and the alternative would basically be the same, only that only those streets that would sign up for some kind of service would pay for wiring. Someone always pays for it. Today it'd probably be part of the house-buying contract, or included in the rent (i.e. the cost spread out over many years).
They could also buy their own wiring from a wiring company, and then tell the phone company: look we have cables right to our house, so give us a phone.
As I said, there *were* working markets in all those commodities that were later monopolized by government in many cities/nations. Phone *was* a market, and the past century in most countries phone was regulated to death (if not completely monopolized), so I can't see where you get your idea from that phone/internet etc. is not a product that would work with a free market (whatever "not work" would mean...).
Anarchy? Yes, I'd like that. Of course there has to be law, but I think it'd be vastly better than the current situation, which is all about creating unequal rights in the name of whoever manages to take the helm (either the "majority", but mostly just some campaigner / industry-installed marionet). Historic anarchies or almost-anarchies existed way longer than any democracy. If it wasn't so sad, it'd be really funny, how one ("democratic") country after another plunges neck-deep into debt, recession, and maybe war, like Lemmings.
You're missing that cities *are* creating monopolies, in most countries (but this is a recent phenomenon).
A hundred years back, many American cities had competitive markets in water, gas, energy and phone providers. AFAIK, many lines weren't buried under the streets, but did go from house to house. Sure, we *prefer* the powerlines to be invisible (and shielded), but there's absolutely nothing that would prevent us from constructing streets so that new cables could be installed cheaply, or even from having the cables in there in the first place and merely *renting* the cables to the telcos (if the streets belong to whoever lives in the street).
What happened is that governments decided that they own the streets, and that only one provider could insert its cables there, "for the public interest". Many cities colluded with the industry to decide by law that only one provider was ok, so monopolies were *created*. Ok, much later AT&T was split up, but that doesn't mean that today's market is free, or that we need regulation *in general*. We're neck-deep in the mess, and so we need some regulated transition, I agree to that.
The whole "to avoid chaos, government did / has to..." line is just to cheap for my taste;) About everything government ever did was a complete failure, putting some chosen few in power at the expense of everybody else. In fact, creating and maintaining such a hierarchical society is the primary *function* of government (as a concept).
That's why centuries ago there were some heretical left-wingers that called themselves "liberals" as in "liberty" or "libertarian". Their goal was to abolish the whole aristocratic/conservative/regulated crap. Not to be confused with modern-day "liberals".
Just because Somalia isn't state-controlled doesn't mean that people there respect individual human rights or property rights.
Anarchy without law is chaos, and regarding African law I have my doubts.
Let's just say that the State failed to establish itself there, because obviously it failed to provide a form of government that's accepted by a vast majority.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have an ideology, but I explain this by the fact that current market offers are Good Enough for most people, and more importantly: most people don't care.
As long as you take whatever media the corporate world pushes on you, you're happy with whatever the new technology of the day is.
Speaking for myself: I refuse to buy DVDs, because region-coded ones won't run on my machine. I refuse to buy DRM-music at iTunes etc., because CDs are a better deal. And so on. There's nothing to explain. Whoever wants iTunes or region-coded DVDs can get them. I odn't have to.
That's like saying that Taco Bell is forcing beans on you, because they stuff beans INTO THE FOOD YOU BUY! Oh my God, I'm so sorry for you...
* You don't have to buy all that hardware.
* You have no god-given right to DRM-free hardware
but:
* lacking any fascist regulation of the marketplace, I'm sure that if all mainstream vendors go DRM, there'll be someone else to offer DRM-free hardware (or rather hardware, that will also play DRM-free content, and that will allow you to turn of the TCPA chip). It'll cost more than $300 per PC, and it might have less than 4GHz, but it'd probably be very usable, if you're happy to live without Windows.
I wouldn't mind AT ALL if government intervened to enforce network neutrality.
The problem with government intervention, though, is that it can't be stopped. Once government make one internet intervention, it will make more - and the next time it's rather probable that it won't be something that helps you to get uncensored web access, but it'll probably by something backed by Big Industry (or when was the last time any government intervention was really pro-people and contra-industry??).
Austrian (anarchist) free-market theory doesn't assume that consumers have good information. It only states that whenever a consumer trades his money for something, it has to be because it's his decision. The economist (because he's an economist, not some judge) CANNOT say if that's good or bad, because he doesn't judge. But the consumer is happy, or he wouldn't buy.
False advertising would be fraud, and would be discovered by the consumer later, if the consumer at all cares about the product. (If the consumer only bought his iPod because it can store data, he doesn't care if Apple makes some false claims like "it can play WMA".)
So obviously lies aren't permitted, because they constitute fraud. When something I bought doesn't do what it was advertised to do, then I have grounds to sue the company.
I don't quite understand where you get the idea that provable false advertising would be legal. AFAIK it's not, because the consumer has a right to a product that works *as advertised*.
Sure, but if they do, then that's because they *prefer* the recording contract to retaining their copy-rights. It's a voluntary choice, even though often it might be a bad one.
I'm not informed enough to judge if such a choice is good or bad. It's not my business, literally.
Some artists (I think number increasing) completely sidestep the Music Mafia and I'm sure there are also more and more indie management companies that care for these artists and support them.
Well, I'm not sure about all those un-CDs. Every CD I bought so far is perfectly rippable, which means it's compliant enough ;)
Another interesting fact is that those un-CDs have been available in Europe for years, but the USA only got them now. For some reason they didn't sell well before... (I'd like to know why!)
For the MPAA & co: agreed. We certainly need to stop government enacting more fascist measures to "protect" an industry that's failing to listen to its clients.
Mandatory DRM would be very very bad indeed.
Well, I hate the DMCA, but it's new to me that it forces everybody to sell only DRM.
I mentioned some examples of DRM-free music, and there are numerous DRM-free devices for sale to play free content, and the DMCA doesn't even disallow that.
Get real, man. If what you said were reality, then it the reality - many people buying and listening to unencumbered media - wouldn't at all be possible.
Of course I do. The DMCA is not only harmful to science and innovation, it's quite fascist about lots of things.
But even if it weren't that bad, I'd oppose it, because what I'm able to do with media I buy is none of their concern, as long as I don't violate their copyright.
Wrong. Just because every device you might like at the moment has DRM by some evil corporation, doesn't mean that they "force DRM into every device able to render [...] any typo of content."
You're the one who makes claims outside of reality. I never claimed the market does solve everything, as you say. I merely said that there's no real problem in this case, except some people who whine about not being able to buy their Britney Spears without DRM.
Maybe you'll need those devices to play media released by the same cartel, but that doesn't mean that there aren't other devices available.
You're not talking about competition, but about perfect competition, which is a wet dream from an economist's book. It's not about reality.
I know it's sad that CD prices don't fall, but that's because every artist has a *monopoly* - like it or not - on his works. If you don't think their music is worth $15, just don't buy it. But again: there's not moral reason for any legal intervention. Just because someone thinks something is too pricey doesn't mean he should be king.
If you want Indie music, or Indie operating systems, you'll actually see that - because of competition - their prices are much better than those for mainstream systems or mainstream music. Take your choice.
In fact the market DID sort out software since '85. That's because the market isn't something that falls from the sky, but it consists of individual acting human beings.
At some point some human beings (many inspired by RMS and the FSF I think) decided that they *wanted* Free Software, and that's why it happened. No magic, no legal intervention, just people and the market.
I like the FSF in most respects, but DRM is just another technology where consumers (yes, that's you and me) have to simply refuse current offers (I never buy DRM music, only CDs). The market already HAS sorted it out. There's Magnatune, there's eMusic. And for everybody who just *needs* mainstream music, well there's only mainstream providers like Napster or iTunes, but I think they're gonna have to live with it. Tough Shit.
There's absolutely nothing that would justify any legal intervention or any other meddling with the market in this case. Nobody is forcing DRM on you.
You pay your price and make your choice.
EU is actually moving [...] from a feudal economy [...] into a competitive European market
You still believe in the Easter bunny, don't you?
(this German here wonders)
I'd say the exact opposite. Government regulations get ever more helpful for Big Enterprise, while the smaller players suffer more and more under the extensive regulations.
Thirded.
I also prefer the runner-up. Collapsable whatevers? What for? When I don't care about a story, pressing space or pd-down is certainly much easier and faster than collapsing the article I don't like... And the sidebar - why would I ever collapse it? It only takes up one screen vertically (and not much horizontally, thank $DEITY).
Not only that, they also make an awesome band! ;-)
Add Standard ML to the list. Everyone should know about functional programming with variant datatypes.
It also has a good book on compilers, another topic any serious CS guy should know about (Andrew Appel's Modern Compiler Implementation in ML; avoid the Java one, it only shows how to get the ML stuff done in Java with three times the code).
Alternatively some people prefer Haskell, which grows more and more popular, and arguably has a nicer syntax.
Ok, thanks for the correction. I'm happy to hear that Turkey has such a culture, and that its soldiers protect the foundations/constitution of their country. I'm afraid though, that not all soldiers in all countries are like that.
I don't think all of government is utterly evil, but I think that because checks and balances are too few and too weak in many places/countries, government continually expands its power, often in ways not really backed by the People.
I was referring to the comment, that "if the government issues illegal orders", the military will in a sense overthrow it, thus protecting the people.
Of course there have been coup d'états, but how many of them were acts of liberation, as opposed to acts of *taking* the power?
Agreed, but it's still the best protection there is.
Also, a decentralized force of citizens (of which nobody knows where they might lurk; in which house there might be armed people) has some advantages.
Of course the best thing to do is still to educated people to stand united against oppressive government actions. It'd also be great if more people were informed about the constitution (in the USA) and what government has no business to do.
I agree that government isn't all bad people, but I think it attracts them more, and that the majority are either selfish and evil, or don't do enough to resist the evils between them.
/. readers are American, it's easier to refer to their system. Of course in Germany too any soldier has the right to resist, when he receives an illegal order (but OTOH they're not supposed to think, but to follow order...). Still, in this respect I'm rather pessimist; I don't think there would be much desertion.
There's something like a coup d'état, but I think that's usually not an act of liberation, but an act of claiming dictatorship. So I stand by my opinion, that the military will never liberate the people from oppressive government. (Ok, there might be exceptions, but I don't think they're likely).
I'm not American, but German, but since most
OTOH, I agree that most normal soldiers wouldn't simply shoot at citizens in most cases. But in most cases of oppression they don't have to. Their mere presence/threat is usually enough to enforce compliance (like in the old Eastern Germany/Soviet bloc).
The problem with the government not breaking the law is usually that government both enforces the law (police, monopoly of violence) and dictates/decides what the law is. That's also why (both in the USA and in Germany) the constitution isn't really 100% respected anymore. Government power can get away with about anything (interestingly, here the German system, paranoidly set up after Hitler, has some advantages, we have some more checks and balances I think). Have you never had to do with police officers abusing their power? Oh, and you can never sue them, because they always come in twos (and will both testify against you, which is enough in Germany 2:1).
You must be young, an idealist, or both. The state isn't comprised of Good people. In all probability government attracts far more bad, power-hungry people than it attracts good people.
The military never overthrows a government, even if the commands given it might be illegal or immoral (the rule usually is: obey or be shot). Just go read a history book on that one.
Democracy cannot guarantee that people have the power. The only thing that keeps current government from going totally fascist is that people would rise up against them (so in a sense there's a democratic element that prevents state dominion). As soon as the military/police power is strong enough (and enough Americans stop owning guns), they can and will go further.
Of course wiring is expensive, and somebody has to pay for it. The difference is that right now that's being done with taxation, and the alternative would basically be the same, only that only those streets that would sign up for some kind of service would pay for wiring. Someone always pays for it. Today it'd probably be part of the house-buying contract, or included in the rent (i.e. the cost spread out over many years).
They could also buy their own wiring from a wiring company, and then tell the phone company: look we have cables right to our house, so give us a phone.
As I said, there *were* working markets in all those commodities that were later monopolized by government in many cities/nations. Phone *was* a market, and the past century in most countries phone was regulated to death (if not completely monopolized), so I can't see where you get your idea from that phone/internet etc. is not a product that would work with a free market (whatever "not work" would mean...).
Anarchy? Yes, I'd like that. Of course there has to be law, but I think it'd be vastly better than the current situation, which is all about creating unequal rights in the name of whoever manages to take the helm (either the "majority", but mostly just some campaigner / industry-installed marionet). Historic anarchies or almost-anarchies existed way longer than any democracy. If it wasn't so sad, it'd be really funny, how one ("democratic") country after another plunges neck-deep into debt, recession, and maybe war, like Lemmings.
You're missing that cities *are* creating monopolies, in most countries (but this is a recent phenomenon).
..." line is just to cheap for my taste ;) About everything government ever did was a complete failure, putting some chosen few in power at the expense of everybody else. In fact, creating and maintaining such a hierarchical society is the primary *function* of government (as a concept).
A hundred years back, many American cities had competitive markets in water, gas, energy and phone providers. AFAIK, many lines weren't buried under the streets, but did go from house to house. Sure, we *prefer* the powerlines to be invisible (and shielded), but there's absolutely nothing that would prevent us from constructing streets so that new cables could be installed cheaply, or even from having the cables in there in the first place and merely *renting* the cables to the telcos (if the streets belong to whoever lives in the street).
What happened is that governments decided that they own the streets, and that only one provider could insert its cables there, "for the public interest". Many cities colluded with the industry to decide by law that only one provider was ok, so monopolies were *created*. Ok, much later AT&T was split up, but that doesn't mean that today's market is free, or that we need regulation *in general*. We're neck-deep in the mess, and so we need some regulated transition, I agree to that.
The whole "to avoid chaos, government did / has to
That's why centuries ago there were some heretical left-wingers that called themselves "liberals" as in "liberty" or "libertarian". Their goal was to abolish the whole aristocratic/conservative/regulated crap. Not to be confused with modern-day "liberals".
So you're saying: we have so many regulations that there is no free market. And your cure for this disease is asking for even more regulations?
How 'bout *making* telecom a freer market than it is now, so entrepreneurs and consumers can choose better what fits their needs?
Just because Somalia isn't state-controlled doesn't mean that people there respect individual human rights or property rights.
Anarchy without law is chaos, and regarding African law I have my doubts.
Let's just say that the State failed to establish itself there, because obviously it failed to provide a form of government that's accepted by a vast majority.
Yes, in an aristocracy (as we have), any competition is strictly limited, as deemed necessary by the Keepers of Law and Order.
Too bad many people confuse the current (FUBAR) system with free markt capitalism, when the latter would likely be very different.