Yep, that's what I mean. Just as with the government, it's about monolopy, not about price discrimination as such. But with a market monopoly, you can have another provider (though you are not entitled to it, as many assume). With a coercive monopoly, you cannot even have that.
I actually agree with what you say. It's not bad per se, it's bad together with and because of the monopoly. I'm just pointing out that it's basically as unfair as progressive and flat percent rate taxes.
Why exactly is price discrimination bad? After all, it's based on the same nice principle as progressive and even flat percent rate taxation: we take more from you for the same thing just because we can. But market price discrimination is better, because you can in theory (and often do in practice) find another provider of goods and services. No such thing with the government.
Try Softmaker Office Standard 2012. Almost perfect MS Office compatibility, LO/OO.o just don't compare. Inexpensive. Good old UI style without the dreaded Ribbon. One gotcha: no macro recorder, though there is a VBA-like macro language for it called BasicMaker.
From my perspective, there is no problem at all on the part of bloggers and activists receiving money, since the validity of a point of view does not suddenly change just because its expression is paid for.
However, as a Russian, I do object to paying Russian taxpayers' money for that. I'm not concerned about American money since I don't pay taxes in the USA.
As I've already pointed out earlier, the very notion of "unlicensed copying" exists due to copyright. Otherwise we would simply talk about contracts which are only applicable to their respective parties.
Therefore, unlicensed copying can only be unethical to the extent that it constitues a breach of a real contract and not by itself.
When I make something to share, I have the right to say "if I share this with you, you have to promise not to copy it."
What you describe here is basically an explicit contract between specific parties (assuming the other party agreed not to copy). Breaking such a contract is indeed unethical. Such contracts regarding works of art are entirely possible and enforceable in absence of copyright (I'm not saying they are possible in each case that copyright allows). And those - not copyright - are, in essense, what I rely on in my own business.
Now for another ethical conundrum. If someone ELSE has broken their promise not to copy a thing, and you obtain one of these copies, is it ethically wrong?
Yep, this is exactly where copyright makes a difference. You weren't a party to the contract with the first distributor, so you cannot possibly breach it. Copyright, in effect, arbitrarily states that you do.
Unlicensed copying is ethically neutral. OTOH, the very notion of a "license" came with copyright, an artificial, government-granted monopoly, which by itself is a violation of property rights. Moreover, copying as such is something that whole human culture is based on.
I'm saying this as someone who earns his living producing copyrighted works, but without collecting royalties from each copy. And as someone who buys his software (or uses FLOSS), yet not for reason that it is somehow unethical not to.
Unlicensed copying is not unethical and won't become unethical however long you keep repeating that. It was just made illegal by fiat (as many ethically neutral things routinely are), and not even since that long ago. Plagiarism may not be ethical, but this is another topic. Copyright itself is however certainly unethical, as is any other coercive monopoly.
What I meant is not Russia as such, but the current Russian leadership which ChatHuant had referred to.
I live in Russia and personally couldn't care less who is winning the space race. But the manned space travel is one thing they haven't managed to completely fuck up yet, which I believe is largely because of international commitments. If it were purely internal affair, I think that the situation would be much more sad.
You can idiot proof things only so much. Boeing is not immune from idiocy, and there are as many examples to that. Recall Aeroflot Flight 821 (aka Perm crash).
They have the capability to finance every kind of shit. They just don't have the other, crucial capability - to have the shit actually done. There's no problem with money, it's just that it's either wasted completely or ends up in the pockets of some selected friends of gov't beaurocrats.
Plotted here is the number of votes cast for each party as a function of voter turnout. There is only one party whose peak is abnormally widened to the right with a huge second near 100% - and this is the United Russia.
I'm a freelance worker, but that's not the point, and neither are wage cuts. There is a logical fallacy of a more or less general nature in the post to which I responded.
Slashdot Mirror
If government can be bought, the basic problem to solve lies with the government, not with the buyer.
Yep, that's what I mean. Just as with the government, it's about monolopy, not about price discrimination as such. But with a market monopoly, you can have another provider (though you are not entitled to it, as many assume). With a coercive monopoly, you cannot even have that.
I actually agree with what you say. It's not bad per se, it's bad together with and because of the monopoly. I'm just pointing out that it's basically as unfair as progressive and flat percent rate taxes.
I wouldn't trust a company named "Bug Labs" to produce hardware and/or software or my car. That would be kinda asking for it.
Why exactly is price discrimination bad? After all, it's based on the same nice principle as progressive and even flat percent rate taxation: we take more from you for the same thing just because we can. But market price discrimination is better, because you can in theory (and often do in practice) find another provider of goods and services. No such thing with the government.
Try Softmaker Office Standard 2012. Almost perfect MS Office compatibility, LO/OO.o just don't compare. Inexpensive. Good old UI style without the dreaded Ribbon. One gotcha: no macro recorder, though there is a VBA-like macro language for it called BasicMaker.
http://tpb.piratenpartij.nl/
From my perspective, there is no problem at all on the part of bloggers and activists receiving money, since the validity of a point of view does not suddenly change just because its expression is paid for.
However, as a Russian, I do object to paying Russian taxpayers' money for that. I'm not concerned about American money since I don't pay taxes in the USA.
As I've already pointed out earlier, the very notion of "unlicensed copying" exists due to copyright. Otherwise we would simply talk about contracts which are only applicable to their respective parties.
Therefore, unlicensed copying can only be unethical to the extent that it constitues a breach of a real contract and not by itself.
When I make something to share, I have the right to say "if I share this with you, you have to promise not to copy it."
What you describe here is basically an explicit contract between specific parties (assuming the other party agreed not to copy). Breaking such a contract is indeed unethical. Such contracts regarding works of art are entirely possible and enforceable in absence of copyright (I'm not saying they are possible in each case that copyright allows). And those - not copyright - are, in essense, what I rely on in my own business.
Now for another ethical conundrum. If someone ELSE has broken their promise not to copy a thing, and you obtain one of these copies, is it ethically wrong?
Yep, this is exactly where copyright makes a difference. You weren't a party to the contract with the first distributor, so you cannot possibly breach it. Copyright, in effect, arbitrarily states that you do.
I can agree with that. A further debatable question is whether every law should be respected.
Unlicensed copying is ethically neutral. OTOH, the very notion of a "license" came with copyright, an artificial, government-granted monopoly, which by itself is a violation of property rights. Moreover, copying as such is something that whole human culture is based on.
I'm saying this as someone who earns his living producing copyrighted works, but without collecting royalties from each copy. And as someone who buys his software (or uses FLOSS), yet not for reason that it is somehow unethical not to.
Yeah, sure. I as a government introduce a fee for say breathing. You took a breath but didn't pay me, therefore you must have committed stealing.
And no, there is no "Disagree" moderation.
Unlicensed copying is not unethical and won't become unethical however long you keep repeating that. It was just made illegal by fiat (as many ethically neutral things routinely are), and not even since that long ago. Plagiarism may not be ethical, but this is another topic. Copyright itself is however certainly unethical, as is any other coercive monopoly.
Probably, but nothing beats Lenin. I bet that "Lenin street" is still the single most common street name in Russia.
He most certainly doesn't have an insurance. Few people do here (not just in Siberia specifically, but in Russia as a whole).
What I meant is not Russia as such, but the current Russian leadership which ChatHuant had referred to.
I live in Russia and personally couldn't care less who is winning the space race. But the manned space travel is one thing they haven't managed to completely fuck up yet, which I believe is largely because of international commitments. If it were purely internal affair, I think that the situation would be much more sad.
You can idiot proof things only so much. Boeing is not immune from idiocy, and there are as many examples to that. Recall Aeroflot Flight 821 (aka Perm crash).
They have the capability to finance every kind of shit. They just don't have the other, crucial capability - to have the shit actually done. There's no problem with money, it's just that it's either wasted completely or ends up in the pockets of some selected friends of gov't beaurocrats.
Wow, for some reason the word "putrid" seems especially well-suited to describe the situation.
AFAIU, the only result of adopting that will be a significant reduction in available loan money and all that it entails.
Here you can see a nice statistical graph that clearly demonstrates election fraud (in Russian; the blue curve is for United Russia):
http://podmoskovnik.livejournal.com/129632.html
Plotted here is the number of votes cast for each party as a function of voter turnout. There is only one party whose peak is abnormally widened to the right with a huge second near 100% - and this is the United Russia.
The government.
I'm a freelance worker, but that's not the point, and neither are wage cuts. There is a logical fallacy of a more or less general nature in the post to which I responded.