As much as I hate to be one to cast doubt on how dirty this deal really is, or (gasp) defend MS on slashdot... is bribery really all that wrong? See here a classic defense of bribery:
Of course, as far as I'm concerned, MS wouldn't exist without the protection of the US Government's bogus patent system. I would probably worry more about that than bribery.
You can always give them fake info when you sign up for a loyalty card. It's not like they ever check (at least places like Giant Eagle). And if the terrorists were actually smart I'd think they would use cash most of the time. As far as I know, most grocery stores still accept greenbacks.
What if the owners actually discovered a cure for cancer this way? They could sell it to the highest bidder... hmm new business ideas coming to mind...
I read your post, and I'm not convinced in the natural monopoly excuse. I say excuse because it reads as an apology for state intervention when none such action necessarily needs to take place. For more on what I am talking about, you might want to take a look at this: http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE9_2_3.pdf
In my opinion, that article pretty much demolishes any reason for any company to be given monopoly privileges by the state. I would even go so far as to say that monopolies are always created by the government, as was the case in the 19th century when utility monopolies first started to come about. Furthermore, since the deregulation we now have Verizon FIOS and AT&T television services all beginning to compete against each other, even after all this time of supposed natural monopolies that were put in place by the government. I say let competition reign!
How bout we get our military out of every other country, so people don't have a reason to dislike our presence? Maybe, just maybe, people in the middle east are finally getting really really upset about continued western meddling in their affairs. If I were in their shoes, I know I would be. We need to stop intervening around the world, period.
Please see my other response in this thread... I think it applies to what you said as well. The problem is that once we begin regulating industry it is difficult to extricate ourselves from government control. We have got to break out of it some how. It might be painful at first but it would be best for the long run to end all subsidies, public infrastructure development, and regulation on telecommunication.
So if it's not under a contract, they should be able to set the terms of a new contract if their customers voluntarily agree with it, right? Your argument, though perhaps valid under the current circumstance, assumes that public money was already invested, and their business wouldn't exist without it. That may some merit, but of course I am against using taxpayer money for any telecommunications purpose, including infrastructure. The problem here is that the initial use of public dollars has led us into a downward spiral of regulation. That makes it harder and harder to get out of it as we go on. So the proper solution in my mind would be to allow private entities to build up their own networks, with their own money, wherever they can get customers. In order to make it equal and ethical for everyone, tax money should be completely taken out of the equation in all circumstances.
The question is not irrelevant. They are selling a service that is only possible to provide on the communications gear that *they purchased*. If you are willing to argue that they don't really own the stuff they provide that service with, then who does? Society? The problem with this for property advocates such as myself is that it is a very slippery slope. Who knows what other rulings against property will come of it - or how courts may use this precedent to justify taking others property for some kind of "common good". If you favor net neutrality, you should start your own telco without charging content providers extra for what bandwidth they use, rather than using the saw to prevent others from using property that they legally purchased.
Public schools have got to be one of the biggest jokes in America. It doesn't matter how poorly they do, people will adamantly defend them day in and day out. Then they will throw more money at the problem, and pretend that fixes it. The reason that most people can't afford private school is because so much of their money is taken and wasted on public schools. All but the best private schools have basically been squeezed out as much as possible.
My brother wrote a heavily used firefox extension, and put a donate screen on it, that only pops up when it is first installed. He is quite happy with the number of people who donate after installing his software.
Yeah, I get what you're saying. I am almost always by the computer, either at work or home. Which for the most part adds up to 24/7. And I don't often feel a need for google queries on the go. If I'm traveling, I make it a point to know in advance what I want to do, where I will be, and how to get there.
You are right about the data plans. That is one of my biggest gripes about the iPhone. I have no need to pay an extra $20/month for EDGE when I am almost always by a computer at home or the office. And I certainly don't need it while I'm driving.
The device that really would work for me is a tablet with wifi (the subject of this article). For the last few months, I've been using a Nokia N800 tablet, which would be perfect for me if it connected to networks better than it does. It's small enough to fit in my pocket, has a beautiful 800x480 screen, and has skype - which could potentially allow me to do away with my cell plan completely. Free wifi and very cheap skype out calls... that's definitely what I want. As it is though, I haven't been able to get it to connect at work, so I have to return it to Amazon. I'll probably wait for the N810 to drop in price and try that one. If that one works slightly better, I will be golden.
My Razr does what I need it to - make calls efficiently, and sit lightly in my pocket. So please forgive me if I don't jump on the iPhone bandwagon. I'm sure the iPhone has great software. I really am. But at this point it seems a little gratuitous to me. What I really want is for cell plans to come down in price. Not more features on my phone. A $20 unlimited minutes plan would be great. I don't think that's too much to ask.
Interesting points. Well, I guess I just don't think people should expect to be able to make a living selling recorded music in the face of such great advancements in technology that we've had. The business of selling recorded music is near dead, and they are trying to tap into the unjust powers of government to sustain an obsolete business model. I don't appreciate my tax dollars being involuntarily taken from me and being used to support these scumbags. Anyway, I support musicians by going to their shows whenever they are in town. I do tend to go to live shows, because that money that actually makes it into the hands of musicians. When it comes down to it, I just don't see how it is unethical or wrong to copy someone's music.
You have repeatedly made the point that use of someones ideas without their permission doesn't deprive them of the use of those ideas. I haven't responded to that exceptyo say that I agree, because thats all I have to say about it. I agree. Yes. That is correct. You are right on that point, which I have never disputed.
Ok, so where I am going wrong then? What is theft? According to http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theft, it is "the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another" (that is based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary). If you copy something, you are not taking property from someone. Therefore, copying music is not theft.
I thought you might be sympathetic to the idea that he deserved some credit for having written it.
You're right, I am sympathetic to that idea, and think he deserves credit for having written it. However, I am unclear as to what that means about my assertions.
Why? Why is it impossible for me to support, lets say, trademarks as they are, 10 year copyright terms, and abolition of patents? Or any other of the infinite possibilities in between total abolition of IP and royalties for fire? Can you really not imagine any middle ground?
Because it unjustly prevents me from using my property, and requires coercive force to maintain these rights.
Actually I oppose IP on both utilitarian and ethical grounds. Utilitarian because it stifles competition, innovation, and technological advance in society. Ethical because it requires a huge bureaucratic machinery of force to enforce. The point about the car, which you continue to miss, is that using someone's IP without their permission isn't theft because they still have use of their ideas. In everything you've said, you still haven't had a real response to that, so I'll just have to assume you don't have one. What does it matter if property is just an idea that we all agree on? Given that assumption, my argument still holds.
And you keep going on about the source of my arguments, where I got them from or whether I give them credit. None of that has any bearing on my arguments. Paying royalties for fire is not a straw man, it is the crux of the issue. Having to pay everyone for every idea they come up with would pretty much result in going back to the stone age. I'm sure you will say "but I'm not saying we should pay everyone for every good idea". But that is exactly where it leads to. With IP going how it is, eventually everyone will demand to get paid, and new inventions and progress will stop because there won't be any way to invent something without using "prior art". I'd hope you would agree that that is ridiculous.
I did respond to your points. You gave an example of stealing a car, and I responded by posting the quote about how IP isn't the same as theft of actual physical property. You dismissed it by criticizing the source, instead of offering a rebuttal. You also claim that property isn't real. That is nonsense... you might as well claim that you and I aren't real. Which I know is a standard meme of philosophy, but it's not really relevant here. Physical property exists because we know I own the stuff in my house that I legally purchased. The concept of property is society's way of ethically treating the use of scarce resources. Intellectual property (ideas) are not scarce, therefore there is no reason to grant someone the exclusive use of an idea. If you grant someone the use of IP, you might as well start paying royalties to the first cave man who discovered how to make fire. The logical conclusion of IP is that nobody would be able to use their physical property. That is the basic problem with IP to a partial degree... it still interferes with physical property rights (in a world of scarcity). This is all discussed in that paper, from page 19 down. Of course, Kinsella says it better than this, so please feel free to read it and let me know what you think. I generally subscribe to his views.
Even firms that should know better, such as banks, promote such practices. I recently logged into my highly secure bank account, and instead of being greeted with my bank information was greeted with a survey. This is such a fundamental breach of security I wonder why I bank with them. Oh, I know. Because every other bank is selling out customer security to make a buck. it is nothing new. I used to recieve many offers on my banks letter head. When I called to see if they were responsible, the agent said they have nothing to do with. Well, I would reply, it is on your letterhead, should I call my AG and state that someone is representing themselves as you? Nothing was said after that.
I recently purchased a townhome, and almost immediately after I moved in I started to receive a deluge of mortgage protection solicitations. They went so far as to print my lender in all caps on the outside of the envelope to make it look legit... like something I was required to respond. And of course as soon as you open those envelopes they have your mortgage amount listed, along with a sign-up sheet requesting all your information. As far as I can tell, a lot of them have "not required" written somewhere on the order form. But still, I wonder how many people have fallen for this crap. I would guess quite a lot, or I wouldn't have received so many official looking solicitations. It's pretty sad to see my legitimate bank acting like this. I could only imagine what it would have been like if I had gone through a second tier lender. As far as I am concerned, it is a borderline scam.
It doesn't matter where I got the quote from. What matters is the point therein - that "stealing" IP isn't theft because you aren't excluding the owner's use of the item. Seems pretty logical to me. Have you read Stephen Kinsella's article against intellectual property I posted earlier? He pretty much demolishes IP arguments. There's not much more I can say if you choose to remain ignorant of that.
I was a subscriber for over a year, and I often listened to those jazz channels, and Chill. Ultimately though, I decided that it wasn't worth it for me, because I just didn't like enough of what they played, and I thought they repeated stuff too much. I enjoy listening to my own music a lot more - I have over 20GB of music. Over half of it is Jazz/Swing, with lots of Trip Hop and downtempo thrown in. I don't necessarily mind when it repeats if I really like it. I just think my collection is better than what play. And I often listen to classical/NPR now to and from work, and am quite satisfied with that and my Ipod.
Physical property ownership in society is thousands of years old. Intellectual property is a concept dreamed up by governments to protect the revenue stream of their buddies in arms. Current law notwithstanding. It can't exist without state coercion. Therefore, it makes no sense with regard to physical property. Go ahead and call me a thief all you want... no skin off my back.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property#Controversy
Furthermore, due to the non-rivalrous nature of intellectual property, comparing the unauthorized use of intellectual property to the crime of theft presents its own unique problems. In common law, theft requires deprivation of the rightful owner of his or her rights to possess, use, or destroy property. Example: When Joe steals Jane's bicycle, Jane cannot use or have access to it. Since intellectual property (for example, ideas and various transcriptions into written words, audible sounds, or electronic media) are so easily reproduced, no such deprivation to the owner occurs. Example: When Joe makes a copy of the music Jane recorded, Jane is not denied access to her original copy. In this sense, many forms of intellectual property meet the non-rival test for public goods: the use of the good by one individual does not reduce the use of that good by others.
Slashdot Mirror
As much as I hate to be one to cast doubt on how dirty this deal really is, or (gasp) defend MS on slashdot... is bribery really all that wrong? See here a classic defense of bribery:
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/seventeen.asp
Of course, as far as I'm concerned, MS wouldn't exist without the protection of the US Government's bogus patent system. I would probably worry more about that than bribery.
You can always give them fake info when you sign up for a loyalty card. It's not like they ever check (at least places like Giant Eagle). And if the terrorists were actually smart I'd think they would use cash most of the time. As far as I know, most grocery stores still accept greenbacks.
They volunteered to kill innocent people who never attacked them. How could they actually think they are "defending america"?
What if the owners actually discovered a cure for cancer this way? They could sell it to the highest bidder... hmm new business ideas coming to mind...
I read your post, and I'm not convinced in the natural monopoly excuse. I say excuse because it reads as an apology for state intervention when none such action necessarily needs to take place. For more on what I am talking about, you might want to take a look at this: http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE9_2_3.pdf
In my opinion, that article pretty much demolishes any reason for any company to be given monopoly privileges by the state. I would even go so far as to say that monopolies are always created by the government, as was the case in the 19th century when utility monopolies first started to come about. Furthermore, since the deregulation we now have Verizon FIOS and AT&T television services all beginning to compete against each other, even after all this time of supposed natural monopolies that were put in place by the government. I say let competition reign!
How bout we get our military out of every other country, so people don't have a reason to dislike our presence? Maybe, just maybe, people in the middle east are finally getting really really upset about continued western meddling in their affairs. If I were in their shoes, I know I would be. We need to stop intervening around the world, period.
Please see my other response in this thread... I think it applies to what you said as well. The problem is that once we begin regulating industry it is difficult to extricate ourselves from government control. We have got to break out of it some how. It might be painful at first but it would be best for the long run to end all subsidies, public infrastructure development, and regulation on telecommunication.
So if it's not under a contract, they should be able to set the terms of a new contract if their customers voluntarily agree with it, right? Your argument, though perhaps valid under the current circumstance, assumes that public money was already invested, and their business wouldn't exist without it. That may some merit, but of course I am against using taxpayer money for any telecommunications purpose, including infrastructure. The problem here is that the initial use of public dollars has led us into a downward spiral of regulation. That makes it harder and harder to get out of it as we go on. So the proper solution in my mind would be to allow private entities to build up their own networks, with their own money, wherever they can get customers. In order to make it equal and ethical for everyone, tax money should be completely taken out of the equation in all circumstances.
The question is not irrelevant. They are selling a service that is only possible to provide on the communications gear that *they purchased*. If you are willing to argue that they don't really own the stuff they provide that service with, then who does? Society? The problem with this for property advocates such as myself is that it is a very slippery slope. Who knows what other rulings against property will come of it - or how courts may use this precedent to justify taking others property for some kind of "common good". If you favor net neutrality, you should start your own telco without charging content providers extra for what bandwidth they use, rather than using the saw to prevent others from using property that they legally purchased.
Question for you: do the ISPs own their equipment?
Public schools have got to be one of the biggest jokes in America. It doesn't matter how poorly they do, people will adamantly defend them day in and day out. Then they will throw more money at the problem, and pretend that fixes it. The reason that most people can't afford private school is because so much of their money is taken and wasted on public schools. All but the best private schools have basically been squeezed out as much as possible.
Solution: copy recorded music to your heart's content. Bleed em dry.
My brother wrote a heavily used firefox extension, and put a donate screen on it, that only pops up when it is first installed. He is quite happy with the number of people who donate after installing his software.
Yeah, I get what you're saying. I am almost always by the computer, either at work or home. Which for the most part adds up to 24/7. And I don't often feel a need for google queries on the go. If I'm traveling, I make it a point to know in advance what I want to do, where I will be, and how to get there.
You are right about the data plans. That is one of my biggest gripes about the iPhone. I have no need to pay an extra $20/month for EDGE when I am almost always by a computer at home or the office. And I certainly don't need it while I'm driving.
The device that really would work for me is a tablet with wifi (the subject of this article). For the last few months, I've been using a Nokia N800 tablet, which would be perfect for me if it connected to networks better than it does. It's small enough to fit in my pocket, has a beautiful 800x480 screen, and has skype - which could potentially allow me to do away with my cell plan completely. Free wifi and very cheap skype out calls... that's definitely what I want. As it is though, I haven't been able to get it to connect at work, so I have to return it to Amazon. I'll probably wait for the N810 to drop in price and try that one. If that one works slightly better, I will be golden.
My Razr does what I need it to - make calls efficiently, and sit lightly in my pocket. So please forgive me if I don't jump on the iPhone bandwagon. I'm sure the iPhone has great software. I really am. But at this point it seems a little gratuitous to me. What I really want is for cell plans to come down in price. Not more features on my phone. A $20 unlimited minutes plan would be great. I don't think that's too much to ask.
Interesting points. Well, I guess I just don't think people should expect to be able to make a living selling recorded music in the face of such great advancements in technology that we've had. The business of selling recorded music is near dead, and they are trying to tap into the unjust powers of government to sustain an obsolete business model. I don't appreciate my tax dollars being involuntarily taken from me and being used to support these scumbags. Anyway, I support musicians by going to their shows whenever they are in town. I do tend to go to live shows, because that money that actually makes it into the hands of musicians. When it comes down to it, I just don't see how it is unethical or wrong to copy someone's music.
Actually I oppose IP on both utilitarian and ethical grounds. Utilitarian because it stifles competition, innovation, and technological advance in society. Ethical because it requires a huge bureaucratic machinery of force to enforce. The point about the car, which you continue to miss, is that using someone's IP without their permission isn't theft because they still have use of their ideas. In everything you've said, you still haven't had a real response to that, so I'll just have to assume you don't have one. What does it matter if property is just an idea that we all agree on? Given that assumption, my argument still holds.
And you keep going on about the source of my arguments, where I got them from or whether I give them credit. None of that has any bearing on my arguments. Paying royalties for fire is not a straw man, it is the crux of the issue. Having to pay everyone for every idea they come up with would pretty much result in going back to the stone age. I'm sure you will say "but I'm not saying we should pay everyone for every good idea". But that is exactly where it leads to. With IP going how it is, eventually everyone will demand to get paid, and new inventions and progress will stop because there won't be any way to invent something without using "prior art". I'd hope you would agree that that is ridiculous.
I did respond to your points. You gave an example of stealing a car, and I responded by posting the quote about how IP isn't the same as theft of actual physical property. You dismissed it by criticizing the source, instead of offering a rebuttal. You also claim that property isn't real. That is nonsense... you might as well claim that you and I aren't real. Which I know is a standard meme of philosophy, but it's not really relevant here. Physical property exists because we know I own the stuff in my house that I legally purchased. The concept of property is society's way of ethically treating the use of scarce resources. Intellectual property (ideas) are not scarce, therefore there is no reason to grant someone the exclusive use of an idea. If you grant someone the use of IP, you might as well start paying royalties to the first cave man who discovered how to make fire. The logical conclusion of IP is that nobody would be able to use their physical property. That is the basic problem with IP to a partial degree... it still interferes with physical property rights (in a world of scarcity). This is all discussed in that paper, from page 19 down. Of course, Kinsella says it better than this, so please feel free to read it and let me know what you think. I generally subscribe to his views.
It doesn't matter where I got the quote from. What matters is the point therein - that "stealing" IP isn't theft because you aren't excluding the owner's use of the item. Seems pretty logical to me. Have you read Stephen Kinsella's article against intellectual property I posted earlier? He pretty much demolishes IP arguments. There's not much more I can say if you choose to remain ignorant of that.
I was a subscriber for over a year, and I often listened to those jazz channels, and Chill. Ultimately though, I decided that it wasn't worth it for me, because I just didn't like enough of what they played, and I thought they repeated stuff too much. I enjoy listening to my own music a lot more - I have over 20GB of music. Over half of it is Jazz/Swing, with lots of Trip Hop and downtempo thrown in. I don't necessarily mind when it repeats if I really like it. I just think my collection is better than what play. And I often listen to classical/NPR now to and from work, and am quite satisfied with that and my Ipod.
Actually, I'm not. Just because they say they own something doesn't mean that it is in fact their property.
Against intellectual property: http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf