Nevertheless it doesn't address the "copyright infringement is stealing" assertion, but does mention that my wife will soon have material she produced online at no charge. If copying was really depriving the creator of anything, then if too many people download my wife's material then we will lose everything we have. Obviously that's not true, because once a written work has been written and is in digital form, it is no longer a limited resource like physical property. If other people have a resource at no charge it doesn't diminish our wealth one bit. As for this:
I mean, if people don't pay for the apps I make, then my kids don't eat (well, or I have to go find something else to do that I'd probably enjoy less).
That same situation could come about if your apps suck or if people, like myself, use apps that have been released under OSS licences. I also don't really care if you enjoy your work. It is up to you to find something both enjoyable and profitable, or to do the things you enjoy at your own expense. It is not up to the rest of us to structure society for your benefit at our expense.
I'm sorry. Where do we have a right to copy others' work?
In our genes. That copied information by which we exist. All our abilities and progress come first from copying, then by modification. It is the fundamental method by which we exist, live and learn.
If I had spent 2-3 years creating a novel, I certainly don't want somebody taking my labor without pay... it can go into the public domain after I'm dead, but not before.
To restrict others copying is not an ability that can be gained without either refraining from releasing the work or by agreement of the people who are to refrain from copying. Persistent attempts to enforce copyright without that widespread agreement will lead inevitably to a police state. There is, IMO a natural right to copy which can be conditionally given up in return for a benefit (such as increased production of such work, as per the US Constitution) but in my view the benefit is being far outweighed by the cost, since those produced works are in most cases effectively never reaching the public domain for the practical use by the people refraining from copying them.
Primary concerns for me in the consideration of this issue include the availability of free education materials and freedom of speech. Basic education has been around for a long time, how is it that our education system never seems to be based on freely available materials, but instead involves a unnecessary government backed flow of cash to copyright holders. I can understand the economics behind making sure there is financial incentive to create current works in advancing subjects, but addition, subtraction and the like have been taught for millennia. Since the materials to teach such things are infinitely copyable, for what reason does society bear enormous expense paying royalties on such information?
Similarly, for free speech, I have been quite surprised over the last few years at how differently some events are reported in different countries for example. Since I don't have time to be travelling all over the world checking out everything for myself, like most people I am fairly reliant on news coverage for information. Yet mistakes, partial truth or biased reporting are unfortunately much too common. Having access to alternative news sources is important but that access is sometimes through online material that could be taken down as violating media companies copyright. They put it on free to air television but somehow it's wrong to see it if I don't live in the broadcast area? Freedom of speech doesn't have much meaning if we use copyright to prevent people from making informed speech.
As for your hypothetical novel, I don't read novels much, so personally I probably won't be interested even if it's free. I think the issues I've raised are far more important than creating a business model for you to make a living writing fiction. And as for my commitment on those issues, my wife writes educational materials for our own children which will be available online under a CC licence, the curriculum being approved for use by our government and modifiable for those people whose governments have different requirements. I do profitable work that makes it possible for my wife to do such things without payment. Look at that, free education without resorting to socialism.
In catholic school religious ed I was taught that communion at least once a year was a requirement. (Found it here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07402a.htm After a year of not taking it, starting at 15, I considered myself officially outside their organisation, no paperwork required.
The fact that they have my name on their books somewhere is not relevant to me, since they also have on their books that you need a man in a dress to contact god for you and forgive you in god's behalf.
Since when has the "nerd" community ever bought into the concept of shunning someone based on their "social" standing as opposed to their talent?
It isn't social standing, it's ethical reputation. Coders of DRM would generally not be highly regarded here, open source contributions by people who historically set out to destroy open source are suspect. There have been phenomenally skilled political leaders who have used that skill for evil, do we honor them for their skill or revile them for their evil actions?
We, as a general rule, rate skill more highly that other things, some things like sexual preference are not considered relevant at all, but if someone expends considerable effort screwing us over, we don't overlook it because they did it so well.
In two hundred years no major court ruling in the US has found fractional reserve banking illegal or unconstitutional.
Indeed. That's why I said it should be prosecuted as fraud, not has been prosecuted as fraud. Nevertheless it is difficult to find a better description for the practice of lending money that doesn't exist at interest.
If you're waiting for such an event you'll be tilting at windmills for the rest of your life.
I didn't say I was expecting it. I'm also not expecting governments to act in the best interest of the people, or for the general population to develop critical thinking skills. All those are still worth promoting though.
Face it, we live in a world of fiat currency, every single significant economic system in the world is based on fiat currency.
Oh, everybody is doing it, so it's a good idea! How did I miss that? Carry on then, my mistake, so sorry. Ignore the crash, this system is fine because everybody is involved.
The transition to full reserve banking would lead to an economic contraction the likes of which we've never seen. What we're experiencing now would be mild next to it.
Yes, because there is no possible way that we can have a prosperity unless the bulk of society is spending wealth that hasn't been generated yet. It isn't productivity and frugality that produce wealth, it's constantly living in hock that does it. Thanks for explaining that to me.
Since the vast majority of loans that created this crisis were not CRA related, I'm at a loss to understand why you continue to focus on CRA loans.
CRA was one thing I mentioned. From my last post, for your reading pleasure since you obviously missed it last time: "but all the sub-prime loans were done in a system of fractional reserve lending, a system of lending that if it was not given legitimacy by government regulation, ought to be rightly prosecuted as fraud." Which is to say, fractional reserve lending is the real culprit and is only possible on a national scale because it is propped up by legislation (regulation).
Here's what the president of the Bank of America had to say on the subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_america#Federal_bailout "Bank of America received US $20 billion in federal bailout from the US government through the TARP program on 16 January 2009 and also got guarantee of US $118 billion in potential losses at the company.[24] This was in addition to the $25 billion given to them in the Fall of 2008 through TARP.
If the president of the Bank of America had any worthwhile understanding of the subject then they shouldn't need billions in bailout money. People with their hands out for money need to be told how finance works, not given a platform to speak. Sheesh, what's wrong with you people! Do you get advice on morality and self-control from crack-whores as well? There were people warning about this even years before it happened, and people who where saying everything was fine right up until the crash, and which of these do you now listen to?
Good regulation is what prevents financial organizations from becoming too leveraged.
Legal protection of fraudulent lending practices is what allows them to become too "leveraged". The fact that there was still officially a gold standard in 1907 doesn't mean a thing since fractional reserve lending was still standard banking practice. The proper response would have been to prosecute the creators of fraudulent money (ie: that without sufficient gold or silver to back the promissory notes) with fraud or counterfeiting instead of introducing laws and regulations so that the fraud was (hopefully) sustainable.
Instead of an argument about why the gold standard is no good (when in reality fractional reserve lending abolished the gold standard long before legislation did), I'd like someone to explain why fiat money should be considered legal tender when it is expressly forbidden by the US constitution. Is there a relevant constitutional amendment that I'm not aware of?
But in a free market, there is no information other than what the companies themselves voluntarily give up
Well, perhaps I'm not a hardcore free market advocate then, but I do tend towards it. Nevertheless, I do not think that requiring sellers to reasonably inform people about the contents or nature of the product for sale is significant market intervention. You could always subpoena the information anyway, but requiring accurate labelling is nothing more than requiring honesty and disclosure of the nature of the product. I do not regard it as "government interference" in a free market, in the same way that I don't regard laws against theft or murder as "government interference" in a free market.
Free market libertarianism is not the same as anarchy.
And what do you put in the label? everything that as a least one molecule, one atom of it? There is no space for that.
Presumably that would be decided in court or something. In Australia contents of food has to be on the label, it doesn't seem to be too onerous. It is covered by legislation but it is in effect just a requirement for honest dealing. It doesn't seem to hard to reason about it. Putting rat shit in a food product is relevant information the customer should know, a drop of water would not be of much interest to many people, a significant dilution would.
People do crazy, short-sighted, and irrational things all the damn time
As I understand it, rational actors in economics doesn't mean they aren't delusional or stupid or wrong. It means they make a conscious decision to take action they believe provides them with their most desired benefit. So that someone who gives to charity may believe that karma or some other thing will return their money to them or look after them if they fall on hard times, or someone may think a weekend on the booze is better than paying their rent. It is their decision, not their sanity or good judgement, that defines them as rational actors in free market economics. At least, that's my understanding of it, millions probably disagree.
Regardless, it is irrelevant to whether free market economics is sound or not compared to other systems because those same crazy, short-sighted, irrational people get positions in government, where they get the opportunity to screw things up for everybody, not just themselves and immediate family.
These private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap, allowing them to be regulated by 50 different state banking supervisors instead of the federal government. And mortgage brokers, who also weren't subject to federal regulation or the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans.
And why did those loans cause a contraction in the money supply when they weren't paid? That only happens because of government backed fractional reserve lending. The situation has been entirely initiated by government intervention. Unconstitutional government intervention at that, being the formation of the fed.
This is a direct result of the 2004 loosening of regulations that restricted their debt-to-net-capital ratio to 15 to 1. After 2004 this became 30 to 1, setting these institutions up for the economic meltdown in 2007 and 2008.
... and yet for any private citizen, a debt-to-net-capital ratio of more than 1:1 is called bankruptcy, which you may avoid if you manage to keep making your payments. What is it that allows lending institutions such ratios? Regulation, that's what. Without law on their side to make their loan created money acceptable as payment of debt and taxes, without laws that allow them to operate with levels of debt that we all know are foolish and irresponsible if taken on by an individual, none of this financial collapse could have happened.
...countries such as Australia and Canada with much stricter banking regulations (and seemingly more effective ones) have escaped the brunt of the current crisis relatively well.
Four of the top 20 banks in the world (20%) are currently Australian, which is an amazing feat for a country of only 20 million people.
As an Australian I do not share your confidence in Australian banks/economy at this stage. Australians are neck deep in debt, just like Americans, and we've only just gone from a significant budget surplus to massive deficit. Had we started this from a position of deficit like the US, I doubt it would be looking so good now, and even so:
http://business.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/bank-gamble-on-first-homes-20090412-a41y.html THE rush of first-home buyers is emerging as a bad-debt time bomb for banks, as government cash incentives for new home owners drives about a quarter of all new mortgage applications for banks.
Combined with the additional lure of low interest rates, analysts have warned that the new customers are inherently risky for banks, particularly given the likelihood of unemployment increasing in the next year.
"The confluence of artificially high housing prices, lack of a savings track record and higher unemployment risk makes the first-home buyer segment the high-risk segment within the banks' portfolio," RBS Equities analyst Jarrod Martin said.
Tough prudential rules have meant Australian banking has largely avoided extensive subprime lending losses that occurred around the world, but first-home buyer losses could drive hundreds of millions of dollars in extra losses for banks.
But analysts warn that the scheme, intended to increase the supply of cheap rental accommodation, is contributing to a boom in house prices under $500,000, making home purchase more expensive.
Risky mortgages being made to people who couldn't get them without government interference in a market with artificially high house prices. Sound familiar? Watch this space. Our money supply also is based on the inflated "value" of these houses, and the capacity of the borrowers to pay. That's the problem, due entirely to regulation. The market uses that system because it has to by government edict. Our currency ought to be based on current economic production, not wistful thinking about the future.
The great majority of sub-prime loans made were not made under The Community Reinvestment Act. The sub-prime loans made under the Community Reinvestment Act have a lower default rate than those made outside of its' purview
but all the sub-prime loans were done in a system of fractional reserve lending, a system of lending that if it was not given legitimacy by government regulation, ought to be rightly prosecuted as fraud.
Without government force making people accept bank created "money" (the bulk of which only exists as a loan) as payment, none of this could have happened. The illusion people have that once you have this bad regulation, all it takes is a mountain more of regulation to fix the problem is irrational. Fractional reserve lending as a government backed system of producing the money supply is unconstitutional in the US and destined to rob the people in any country. As we see today.
I did, I intentionally pushed to the logical conclusion of "where do you draw the line". You want food regulated, but what about silverware? Got to make sure we don't see a return to mercury/lead for those, or the use of toxic plastics, but then we have plates, which leads us to..... you see the pattern?
That's not necessarily the logical conclusion though. Free market theories require an informed customer. Requiring accurate and complete product information is a basic requirement of a free market, though more obvious now than when Adam Smith was around. Want to sell cans of Rat Faeces Stew? No problem, so long as you label it honestly. I don't anticipate a big market for it, but go for your life trying. Sell it labelled as beef, go to prison. Existing laws against fraud etc are enough for that situation if applied correctly.
How any of this could be seriously accepted as the result of a lack of regulation is one of the most outstanding achievements of propagandists of all time.
How strange it is to see a crash caused entirely by government intervention in the market continually touted as a "failure of capitalism" and blamed on a lack of regulation.
Fractional reserve lending backed by government edict (whether you think it is a good idea or not) creates the situation where the ongoing money supply is dependent on peoples ability to repay loans. The Community Reinvestment Act required lending institutions to make loans that would ultimately not be repaid. How any of this could be seriously accepted as the result of a lack of regulation is one of the most outstanding achievements of propagandists of all time.
Will you never stop trolling? By what reasoning do you call me a thief? Because I have a different opinion to you? My stuff is properly licensed. Just because I disagree with current implementations of copyright law doesn't make me a thief, unless we have introduced thought-crime into our justice system.
Even though I don't agree, I can understand your assertion that breaching copyright is theft, but to say that making an argument against you is theft is ridiculous. Nevertheless, if others choose to spend their time working unprofitably that is hardly my fault. Guess what, I like to do things that people won't pay for too. Wah wah wah! Pay me because I'm an artist!
People like you are fucking shameful.
In contrast with people like you, who have no shame.
At least shoplifters admit what they do is wrong.
and yet you can't even tell me what I've done wrong. You've just called me a thief for disagreeing with you. Your false accusation puts you in the position of being the one doing wrong, but I've seen your trolls too many times to think you will admit it.
Let me ask you this:
If you are prepared to pay the people who grow your food for their work, why are you not prepared to pay the people who entertain you?
If food became infinitely copyable through consumer technology you can be sure I would be distributing copied food all over the world wherever there was still any lack. I do not raid farmers paddocks or stores to steal produce though, troll. I've had conversations with you before so I won't reply again. I'm well aware that you have no intention of allowing anything to change your mind.
Maybe one day, because you went broke clinging to an outdated business model, you'll be starving, and I'll come by with a truckload of fresh copied fruit and vegetables.
Is it paranoid of me to wonder whether The Pirate Bay is actually an agent provocateur, working with, not against, the record companies?
Do you think the RIAA executives are patient enough? TPB has been around awhile. I think if they were working for the record companies then by the time a million users had completed their downloads the lawsuits would have been flying. If not for lawsuits, then why?
There is _not_ a whole world of difference. I am _now_ asking people to hate religions, including but not limited to christianity, judaism, and islam. By doing that I am breaking the law. That law is wrong on so many levels.
As far as I'm aware you are not inciting religious hatred. Inciting religious hatred would be if you were inciting people to kill religious people, for example. "Inciting" them to hate the religion and leave it is not the same thing. I'm not British and I'm not a lawyer. If you get charged, shut up and let a lawyer do the talking for you, I suspect you'd get let off.
From the article you linked to:
This is no mere file sharing case, so if you share the odd file now and again, you don't need to worry about facing charges like this.
... which is exactly my point, and the point relevant to this article.
Am I the only one astonished at the number of people on this thread who can't grasp something so clear and simple as copyright violation being a crime in the same way that theft, murder, fraud, perjury, breach of contract, etc. etc. are crimes? What's their to understand? How is copyright violation not a crime in the same way as theft is a crime?
If that were so, the media industries would call the police and report it, not sue for damages. Nevertheless, even if, as you assert, it was "a crime in the same way that theft, murder, fraud, perjury, breach of contract, etc. etc. are crimes", (breach of contract isn't a crime either, btw) then why do people assert that "copyright infringement is theft" instead of "copyright infringement is murder" or "copyright infringement is rape" or "copyright infringement is drunk driving"? Since the principle's the same, according to you.
Yes. By extension, if you go to a bookstore several times and rip out some of the pages of a book each time until you have stolen the entire book, then there's nothing wrong. The degree of deliberate self-delusion on this thread is mind boggling.
The summary is badly written. If I understand the article correctly "They also claimed that, because files are broken up into tiny "packets" before being sent over BitTorrent, this may not be enough to suggest a "substantial portion" of a copyrighted file was distributed." they are intending to argue that logging a few packets is not enough evidence for them to kick their customers off or for themselves to be held liable. I don't think they are trying to argue that files are not distributed this way. It's not an unreasonable position to take given the various frivolous lawsuits in the US based on the same type of evidence accompanying the demand to break their service contracts and force their customers to their competitors service.
By that exact same reasoning a raw IP packet "cannot be used to distribute pirated content because a packet does not represent a substantial portion of the infringing material".
From TFA: They also claimed that, because files are broken up into tiny "packets" before being sent over BitTorrent, this may not be enough to suggest a "substantial portion" of a copyrighted file was distributed.
I think the argument might not be that sending it by packets cannot be infringement but that logging a few packets is not enough evidence either to kick their customers or be held liable themselves.
iiNet have a contract with their customers, not with the media companies. Should they disconnect people only on the basis of an IP number and file name given to them by a third party? They ought to be wary of breaking those service contracts. Since the customers also do not go on an ISP blacklist or anything (yet) all their compliance would do is to send that customer to another ISP, their competition, as well as expose them to lawsuits from ex-customers who got disconnected. So they have quite rightly stated that they require a higher standard of evidence than media company accusations.
Slashdot Mirror
Nevertheless it doesn't address the "copyright infringement is stealing" assertion, but does mention that my wife will soon have material she produced online at no charge. If copying was really depriving the creator of anything, then if too many people download my wife's material then we will lose everything we have. Obviously that's not true, because once a written work has been written and is in digital form, it is no longer a limited resource like physical property. If other people have a resource at no charge it doesn't diminish our wealth one bit. As for this:
I mean, if people don't pay for the apps I make, then my kids don't eat (well, or I have to go find something else to do that I'd probably enjoy less).
That same situation could come about if your apps suck or if people, like myself, use apps that have been released under OSS licences. I also don't really care if you enjoy your work. It is up to you to find something both enjoyable and profitable, or to do the things you enjoy at your own expense. It is not up to the rest of us to structure society for your benefit at our expense.
I'm sorry. Where do we have a right to copy others' work?
In our genes. That copied information by which we exist. All our abilities and progress come first from copying, then by modification. It is the fundamental method by which we exist, live and learn.
If I had spent 2-3 years creating a novel, I certainly don't want somebody taking my labor without pay... it can go into the public domain after I'm dead, but not before.
To restrict others copying is not an ability that can be gained without either refraining from releasing the work or by agreement of the people who are to refrain from copying. Persistent attempts to enforce copyright without that widespread agreement will lead inevitably to a police state. There is, IMO a natural right to copy which can be conditionally given up in return for a benefit (such as increased production of such work, as per the US Constitution) but in my view the benefit is being far outweighed by the cost, since those produced works are in most cases effectively never reaching the public domain for the practical use by the people refraining from copying them.
Primary concerns for me in the consideration of this issue include the availability of free education materials and freedom of speech. Basic education has been around for a long time, how is it that our education system never seems to be based on freely available materials, but instead involves a unnecessary government backed flow of cash to copyright holders. I can understand the economics behind making sure there is financial incentive to create current works in advancing subjects, but addition, subtraction and the like have been taught for millennia. Since the materials to teach such things are infinitely copyable, for what reason does society bear enormous expense paying royalties on such information?
Similarly, for free speech, I have been quite surprised over the last few years at how differently some events are reported in different countries for example. Since I don't have time to be travelling all over the world checking out everything for myself, like most people I am fairly reliant on news coverage for information. Yet mistakes, partial truth or biased reporting are unfortunately much too common. Having access to alternative news sources is important but that access is sometimes through online material that could be taken down as violating media companies copyright. They put it on free to air television but somehow it's wrong to see it if I don't live in the broadcast area? Freedom of speech doesn't have much meaning if we use copyright to prevent people from making informed speech.
As for your hypothetical novel, I don't read novels much, so personally I probably won't be interested even if it's free. I think the issues I've raised are far more important than creating a business model for you to make a living writing fiction. And as for my commitment on those issues, my wife writes educational materials for our own children which will be available online under a CC licence, the curriculum being approved for use by our government and modifiable for those people whose governments have different requirements. I do profitable work that makes it possible for my wife to do such things without payment. Look at that, free education without resorting to socialism.
In catholic school religious ed I was taught that communion at least once a year was a requirement. (Found it here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07402a.htm After a year of not taking it, starting at 15, I considered myself officially outside their organisation, no paperwork required.
The fact that they have my name on their books somewhere is not relevant to me, since they also have on their books that you need a man in a dress to contact god for you and forgive you in god's behalf.
They didn't sue students and grandmothers out of evil and malice, they sued them because that's what they were paid to do.
We rejected similar reasoning at Nuremberg. "I'm not responsible because I was told to do it" is not a valid defence of evil actions.
Since when has the "nerd" community ever bought into the concept of shunning someone based on their "social" standing as opposed to their talent?
It isn't social standing, it's ethical reputation. Coders of DRM would generally not be highly regarded here, open source contributions by people who historically set out to destroy open source are suspect. There have been phenomenally skilled political leaders who have used that skill for evil, do we honor them for their skill or revile them for their evil actions?
We, as a general rule, rate skill more highly that other things, some things like sexual preference are not considered relevant at all, but if someone expends considerable effort screwing us over, we don't overlook it because they did it so well.
In two hundred years no major court ruling in the US has found fractional reserve banking illegal or unconstitutional.
Indeed. That's why I said it should be prosecuted as fraud, not has been prosecuted as fraud. Nevertheless it is difficult to find a better description for the practice of lending money that doesn't exist at interest.
If you're waiting for such an event you'll be tilting at windmills for the rest of your life.
I didn't say I was expecting it. I'm also not expecting governments to act in the best interest of the people, or for the general population to develop critical thinking skills. All those are still worth promoting though.
Face it, we live in a world of fiat currency, every single significant economic system in the world is based on fiat currency.
Oh, everybody is doing it, so it's a good idea! How did I miss that? Carry on then, my mistake, so sorry. Ignore the crash, this system is fine because everybody is involved.
The transition to full reserve banking would lead to an economic contraction the likes of which we've never seen. What we're experiencing now would be mild next to it.
Yes, because there is no possible way that we can have a prosperity unless the bulk of society is spending wealth that hasn't been generated yet. It isn't productivity and frugality that produce wealth, it's constantly living in hock that does it. Thanks for explaining that to me.
Since the vast majority of loans that created this crisis were not CRA related, I'm at a loss to understand why you continue to focus on CRA loans.
CRA was one thing I mentioned. From my last post, for your reading pleasure since you obviously missed it last time: "but all the sub-prime loans were done in a system of fractional reserve lending, a system of lending that if it was not given legitimacy by government regulation, ought to be rightly prosecuted as fraud." Which is to say, fractional reserve lending is the real culprit and is only possible on a national scale because it is propped up by legislation (regulation).
Here's what the president of the Bank of America had to say on the subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_america#Federal_bailout
"Bank of America received US $20 billion in federal bailout from the US government through the TARP program on 16 January 2009 and also got guarantee of US $118 billion in potential losses at the company.[24] This was in addition to the $25 billion given to them in the Fall of 2008 through TARP.
If the president of the Bank of America had any worthwhile understanding of the subject then they shouldn't need billions in bailout money. People with their hands out for money need to be told how finance works, not given a platform to speak. Sheesh, what's wrong with you people! Do you get advice on morality and self-control from crack-whores as well? There were people warning about this even years before it happened, and people who where saying everything was fine right up until the crash, and which of these do you now listen to?
Good regulation is what prevents financial organizations from becoming too leveraged.
Legal protection of fraudulent lending practices is what allows them to become too "leveraged". The fact that there was still officially a gold standard in 1907 doesn't mean a thing since fractional reserve lending was still standard banking practice. The proper response would have been to prosecute the creators of fraudulent money (ie: that without sufficient gold or silver to back the promissory notes) with fraud or counterfeiting instead of introducing laws and regulations so that the fraud was (hopefully) sustainable.
Instead of an argument about why the gold standard is no good (when in reality fractional reserve lending abolished the gold standard long before legislation did), I'd like someone to explain why fiat money should be considered legal tender when it is expressly forbidden by the US constitution. Is there a relevant constitutional amendment that I'm not aware of?
But in a free market, there is no information other than what the companies themselves voluntarily give up
Well, perhaps I'm not a hardcore free market advocate then, but I do tend towards it. Nevertheless, I do not think that requiring sellers to reasonably inform people about the contents or nature of the product for sale is significant market intervention. You could always subpoena the information anyway, but requiring accurate labelling is nothing more than requiring honesty and disclosure of the nature of the product. I do not regard it as "government interference" in a free market, in the same way that I don't regard laws against theft or murder as "government interference" in a free market.
Free market libertarianism is not the same as anarchy.
And what do you put in the label? everything that as a least one molecule, one atom of it? There is no space for that.
Presumably that would be decided in court or something. In Australia contents of food has to be on the label, it doesn't seem to be too onerous. It is covered by legislation but it is in effect just a requirement for honest dealing. It doesn't seem to hard to reason about it. Putting rat shit in a food product is relevant information the customer should know, a drop of water would not be of much interest to many people, a significant dilution would.
People do crazy, short-sighted, and irrational things all the damn time
As I understand it, rational actors in economics doesn't mean they aren't delusional or stupid or wrong. It means they make a conscious decision to take action they believe provides them with their most desired benefit. So that someone who gives to charity may believe that karma or some other thing will return their money to them or look after them if they fall on hard times, or someone may think a weekend on the booze is better than paying their rent. It is their decision, not their sanity or good judgement, that defines them as rational actors in free market economics. At least, that's my understanding of it, millions probably disagree.
Regardless, it is irrelevant to whether free market economics is sound or not compared to other systems because those same crazy, short-sighted, irrational people get positions in government, where they get the opportunity to screw things up for everybody, not just themselves and immediate family.
These private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap, allowing them to be regulated by 50 different state banking supervisors instead of the federal government. And mortgage brokers, who also weren't subject to federal regulation or the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans.
And why did those loans cause a contraction in the money supply when they weren't paid? That only happens because of government backed fractional reserve lending. The situation has been entirely initiated by government intervention. Unconstitutional government intervention at that, being the formation of the fed.
By the way: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Barack+Obama+Citibank+CRA
This is a direct result of the 2004 loosening of regulations that restricted their debt-to-net-capital ratio to 15 to 1. After 2004 this became 30 to 1, setting these institutions up for the economic meltdown in 2007 and 2008.
... and yet for any private citizen, a debt-to-net-capital ratio of more than 1:1 is called bankruptcy, which you may avoid if you manage to keep making your payments. What is it that allows lending institutions such ratios? Regulation, that's what. Without law on their side to make their loan created money acceptable as payment of debt and taxes, without laws that allow them to operate with levels of debt that we all know are foolish and irresponsible if taken on by an individual, none of this financial collapse could have happened.
...countries such as Australia and Canada with much stricter banking regulations (and seemingly more effective ones) have escaped the brunt of the current crisis relatively well.
Four of the top 20 banks in the world (20%) are currently Australian, which is an amazing feat for a country of only 20 million people.
As an Australian I do not share your confidence in Australian banks/economy at this stage. Australians are neck deep in debt, just like Americans, and we've only just gone from a significant budget surplus to massive deficit. Had we started this from a position of deficit like the US, I doubt it would be looking so good now, and even so:
http://business.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/bank-gamble-on-first-homes-20090412-a41y.html
THE rush of first-home buyers is emerging as a bad-debt time bomb for banks, as government cash incentives for new home owners drives about a quarter of all new mortgage applications for banks.
Combined with the additional lure of low interest rates, analysts have warned that the new customers are inherently risky for banks, particularly given the likelihood of unemployment increasing in the next year.
"The confluence of artificially high housing prices, lack of a savings track record and higher unemployment risk makes the first-home buyer segment the high-risk segment within the banks' portfolio," RBS Equities analyst Jarrod Martin said.
Tough prudential rules have meant Australian banking has largely avoided extensive subprime lending losses that occurred around the world, but first-home buyer losses could drive hundreds of millions of dollars in extra losses for banks.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/cheap-rent-tax-break-is-pushing-up-house-prices-20090412-a3zl.html
Cheap rent tax break is pushing up house prices
But analysts warn that the scheme, intended to increase the supply of cheap rental accommodation, is contributing to a boom in house prices under $500,000, making home purchase more expensive.
Risky mortgages being made to people who couldn't get them without government interference in a market with artificially high house prices. Sound familiar? Watch this space. Our money supply also is based on the inflated "value" of these houses, and the capacity of the borrowers to pay. That's the problem, due entirely to regulation. The market uses that system because it has to by government edict. Our currency ought to be based on current economic production, not wistful thinking about the future.
The great majority of sub-prime loans made were not made under The Community Reinvestment Act.
The sub-prime loans made under the Community Reinvestment Act have a lower default rate than those made outside of its' purview
but all the sub-prime loans were done in a system of fractional reserve lending, a system of lending that if it was not given legitimacy by government regulation, ought to be rightly prosecuted as fraud.
Without government force making people accept bank created "money" (the bulk of which only exists as a loan) as payment, none of this could have happened. The illusion people have that once you have this bad regulation, all it takes is a mountain more of regulation to fix the problem is irrational. Fractional reserve lending as a government backed system of producing the money supply is unconstitutional in the US and destined to rob the people in any country. As we see today.
I did, I intentionally pushed to the logical conclusion of "where do you draw the line". You want food regulated, but what about silverware? Got to make sure we don't see a return to mercury/lead for those, or the use of toxic plastics, but then we have plates, which leads us to..... you see the pattern?
That's not necessarily the logical conclusion though. Free market theories require an informed customer. Requiring accurate and complete product information is a basic requirement of a free market, though more obvious now than when Adam Smith was around. Want to sell cans of Rat Faeces Stew? No problem, so long as you label it honestly. I don't anticipate a big market for it, but go for your life trying. Sell it labelled as beef, go to prison. Existing laws against fraud etc are enough for that situation if applied correctly.
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, The Federal Reserve Act, fractional reserve lending and the Community Reinvestment Act all get a mention.
How any of this could be seriously accepted as the result of a lack of regulation is one of the most outstanding achievements of propagandists of all time.
Yet too many idiots are trying to turn that into an argument for more legislation. I mean, you'd think they'd learn ...
No, they want to be looked after, including having their thinking done for them.
You want to know what a lack of sensible regulation and control gets you - look at the current financial troubles your country has caused.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=community+reinvestment+act
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=federal+reserve+act
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=fractional+reserve+lending
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) (NYSE: FNM), commonly known as Fannie Mae, is a stockholder-owned corporation chartered by Congress in 1968 as a government sponsored enterprise
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Mac The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC) (NYSE: FRE), known as Freddie Mac, is a government sponsored enterprise (GSE) of the United States federal government
How strange it is to see a crash caused entirely by government intervention in the market continually touted as a "failure of capitalism" and blamed on a lack of regulation.
Fractional reserve lending backed by government edict (whether you think it is a good idea or not) creates the situation where the ongoing money supply is dependent on peoples ability to repay loans. The Community Reinvestment Act required lending institutions to make loans that would ultimately not be repaid. How any of this could be seriously accepted as the result of a lack of regulation is one of the most outstanding achievements of propagandists of all time.
thieves like you will just swipe the music
Will you never stop trolling? By what reasoning do you call me a thief? Because I have a different opinion to you? My stuff is properly licensed. Just because I disagree with current implementations of copyright law doesn't make me a thief, unless we have introduced thought-crime into our justice system.
Even though I don't agree, I can understand your assertion that breaching copyright is theft, but to say that making an argument against you is theft is ridiculous. Nevertheless, if others choose to spend their time working unprofitably that is hardly my fault. Guess what, I like to do things that people won't pay for too. Wah wah wah! Pay me because I'm an artist!
People like you are fucking shameful.
In contrast with people like you, who have no shame.
At least shoplifters admit what they do is wrong.
and yet you can't even tell me what I've done wrong. You've just called me a thief for disagreeing with you. Your false accusation puts you in the position of being the one doing wrong, but I've seen your trolls too many times to think you will admit it.
Let me ask you this:
If you are prepared to pay the people who grow your food for their work, why are you not prepared to pay the people who entertain you?
If food became infinitely copyable through consumer technology you can be sure I would be distributing copied food all over the world wherever there was still any lack. I do not raid farmers paddocks or stores to steal produce though, troll. I've had conversations with you before so I won't reply again. I'm well aware that you have no intention of allowing anything to change your mind.
Maybe one day, because you went broke clinging to an outdated business model, you'll be starving, and I'll come by with a truckload of fresh copied fruit and vegetables.
Is it paranoid of me to wonder whether The Pirate Bay is actually an agent provocateur, working with, not against, the record companies?
Do you think the RIAA executives are patient enough? TPB has been around awhile. I think if they were working for the record companies then by the time a million users had completed their downloads the lawsuits would have been flying. If not for lawsuits, then why?
There is _not_ a whole world of difference. I am _now_ asking people to hate religions, including but not limited to christianity, judaism, and islam. By doing that I am breaking the law. That law is wrong on so many levels.
As far as I'm aware you are not inciting religious hatred. Inciting religious hatred would be if you were inciting people to kill religious people, for example. "Inciting" them to hate the religion and leave it is not the same thing. I'm not British and I'm not a lawyer. If you get charged, shut up and let a lawyer do the talking for you, I suspect you'd get let off.
From the article you linked to:
... which is exactly my point, and the point relevant to this article.
This is no mere file sharing case, so if you share the odd file now and again, you don't need to worry about facing charges like this.
Am I the only one astonished at the number of people on this thread who can't grasp something so clear and simple as copyright violation being a crime in the same way that theft, murder, fraud, perjury, breach of contract, etc. etc. are crimes? What's their to understand? How is copyright violation not a crime in the same way as theft is a crime?
If that were so, the media industries would call the police and report it, not sue for damages. Nevertheless, even if, as you assert, it was "a crime in the same way that theft, murder, fraud, perjury, breach of contract, etc. etc. are crimes", (breach of contract isn't a crime either, btw) then why do people assert that "copyright infringement is theft" instead of "copyright infringement is murder" or "copyright infringement is rape" or "copyright infringement is drunk driving"? Since the principle's the same, according to you.
Yes. By extension, if you go to a bookstore several times and rip out some of the pages of a book each time until you have stolen the entire book, then there's nothing wrong. The degree of deliberate self-delusion on this thread is mind boggling.
The summary is badly written. If I understand the article correctly "They also claimed that, because files are broken up into tiny "packets" before being sent over BitTorrent, this may not be enough to suggest a "substantial portion" of a copyrighted file was distributed." they are intending to argue that logging a few packets is not enough evidence for them to kick their customers off or for themselves to be held liable. I don't think they are trying to argue that files are not distributed this way. It's not an unreasonable position to take given the various frivolous lawsuits in the US based on the same type of evidence accompanying the demand to break their service contracts and force their customers to their competitors service.
By that exact same reasoning a raw IP packet "cannot be used to distribute pirated content because a packet does not represent a substantial portion of the infringing material".
From TFA: They also claimed that, because files are broken up into tiny "packets" before being sent over BitTorrent, this may not be enough to suggest a "substantial portion" of a copyrighted file was distributed.
I think the argument might not be that sending it by packets cannot be infringement but that logging a few packets is not enough evidence either to kick their customers or be held liable themselves.
iiNet have a contract with their customers, not with the media companies. Should they disconnect people only on the basis of an IP number and file name given to them by a third party? They ought to be wary of breaking those service contracts. Since the customers also do not go on an ISP blacklist or anything (yet) all their compliance would do is to send that customer to another ISP, their competition, as well as expose them to lawsuits from ex-customers who got disconnected. So they have quite rightly stated that they require a higher standard of evidence than media company accusations.