You overlook the fact that there is no essential moral distinction that can be made between this research and the research conducted by the Nazis on the Jews. It is an utter defeat for Bush to say, "Well, those babies are dead anyway." It is not fundamentally different from saying this to Mengele:
"You Nazis have committed unspeakable acts of utter barbarity against the Jews! By the way, can we see your research files?"
Bush revealed himself as a political opportunist with respect to this issue. This was not a decision made on the basis of any firm moral principles he allegedly holds. If he's pro-life, he sold the store; if he's not, then why any restrictions at all?
Pago Pago (pronounced like "pongo pongo") is the capital and principal city of American Samoa.
It's also the place where Robert Louis Stevenson breathed his last (and he's buried there; I've seen a photo of him when he lived on the island, and he was one sickly puppy dog).
It is precisely this commitment to global warming in the face of the facts that qualifies its ardent adherents as religious devotees (I'm not identifying you as one of them; your arguments, however, are like theirs.).
First, I'll note that you didn't address the other issue I mentioned: allegedly man-generated "global warming" being at fault in the melting of an Icelandic glacier (in an area where farming was done just 3-4 centuries ago). This fact suggests that what we have here are cycles of global temperature variation, and that we are simply coming round for another period on the warm side.
Secondly, I don't agree with this absurdist position of the global warming hacks at all: if global temperatures go up, I expect to find average temperatures in my region going UP, not down. This counter-intuitive "Well, global warming will cause really cold temperatures too" is nothing but utter nonsense: is the planet warming up or not?
I have no problem with the idea that "global warming" - if it were actually occurring - would generate more violent storms, droughts, hurricanes, etc. It is simply a fool's errand to attempt to explain colder than average temperatures (over an entire season, in an entire region, mind you) as the product of generally "increasing" temperatures.
And this doesn't even begin to address issues of causality, nor the problems associated with the fact that the data collection for this alleged "warming" occurs around cities (which are always warmer anyway).
Global warming is the biggest con job to come down the pike since - since I don't know when. It is a complete and total farce.
Where we live, we just "enjoyed" one of the coldest, snowiest winters on record: in the top 10 in recorded history. But of course, the acolytes of global warming will (om-mane-padme-om) have an explanation, right?
One little bit of info that the g.w. religionists like to point to is a receding glacier in Iceland. Problem is, they don't check their history records: the valley where the glacier is now was used for agriculture in the 1700s!
"Global warming" is pure "B" as in "B", "S" as in "S". It is a pack of lies being dumped on us for the purpose of justifying more government regulation.
Federal drug laws are a good example of a bad law that conservatives ought to give up, the way that Prohibition was given up. However, conservatives are by no means united about this; no less a conservative than William F. Buckley has advocated the legalization of drugs. I believe that he is right.
As to today's ruling: it can by no means be considered to be contrary to states' rights. Conservatives are not 100% "states' rights," if by that you mean that the states trump the Constitution all the time. They do not.
The Constitution specifies that it is the state legislatures (not the state judiciaries) that determines how electors are appointed. That fact means that this is NOT just a states' rights issue. It is Constitutional.
Furthermore, the federal law in U.S.C. 3 that requires the election laws to be in place before the election is perfectly in keeping with both the Constitution and simple justice. Ex post facto "law" is not law at all; it is tyranny, and no judge or court has the right to change the rules after the game has been played. But this is what Al Gore et. al. have been attempting. They have been desperately seeking a judge to overturn the laws of Florida. It's pathetic.
There are no original ideas here, hell, there arent even any plagiarized ideas here
Oh, please. You can't have it both ways. Either I stole it from someone or I invented it myself (possibly simultaneously with others).
I will grant that I wasn't trying to be original; I was critiquing a fool's rant. It's entirely obvious that Katz doesn't give much thought to what he writes, as the logical and historical errors in his columns almost always demonstrate. One need not have original or stolen ideas to nevertheless be "insightful" in pointing out a writer's errors (and I do not mean to say that I was "insightful" or "interesting;" I'm merely pointing out that neither of those descriptions requires "ideas" and can apply to one's analysis of another's writing).
You're not a Gore drone, are you? Or are you Katz himself?:-)
No, I'm not a Bush drone; I didn't vote for him and would never even consider voting for him. I simply reject the fantasies of those who suppose -- as Katz does -- that there's something wrong with the system. There's nothing wrong with it. Gore and his gang of election thieves could figure out a way to steal the election under *any* voting scheme we might devise, and it's simply absurd to pretend otherwise.
Our system of government has always assumed and depended upon the fundamental notion that the citizens must be virtuous, because without that it cannot work. Gore's chicanery (preceded by Clinton's in the impeachment) is simply evidence of the veracity of what the Founders believed: the Republic cannot survive if the people are not virtuous.
Jon Katz is not to be taken seriously when he addresses any subject having a historical context greater than, say, 24 hours.
Our system for electing presidents takes too long. Rubbish. Under normal circumstances it does NOT take long. This happens to be a very close election with an increasing amount of political fighting instigated by a poor loser (that would be Gore).
the country that helped give birth to the Net administers its political system in an inconvenient, mish-mashed network of ancient and inconvenient systems, confusing methodology and out-of-touch bureaucracies, all right out of the 18th century.
This is an adequate example of Katz's historical myopia. If it's older than he is, it can't be any good -- or so says Katz. Of course this is pure nonsense. Katz has no problem with that good 'ol "ancient" First Amendment, though.
What part of a punch card system comes from the 18th century, Katz? Which modern American bureaucracy dates from the 18th century, Katz?
Science and technology -- however far from infallible -- could also help address some of the other problems surfacing in last week's election fiasco.
This is laughable. Everyone in the Gore campaign is sputtering and fuming about the errors and failures in Florida, and Katz wants to replace it with...another fallible system! What a "brilliant" idea! Note to Katz: fallible sytems fail. That's why they're fallible. Absent physical data as we have now, exactly how would we verify an election if we were to go to a digital election system as you so blithely recommend?
We are hearing about poorly-designed ballots Baloney. That ballot was NOT, NOT, NOT poorly designed. As has been demonstrated in various news reports, 2nd graders have been able to successfully fill that ballot out. Whining about that ballot after the fact is pure sour grapes. The ballot was designed by Democrats, approved by Democrats, and sent in advance to every registered voter in the county. No complaints. If these whiners really did screw up, they were a) incompetent (because it was NOT hard to fill out that ballot), and b) unworthy of the privilege of voting, because they failed to exert even a tiny bit of energy to get help with it at the time they were voting -- which shows the contempt in which they held their privilege.
And that's just out of Palm Beach County in Florida, one of the richest communities in the nation. Imagine the potential scandals and sloppiness still lying uncovered in the rest of the country.
In Katz's demented worldview, having less money implies carelessness about a solemn privilege. He has no evidence for such an assertion, but he makes it nonetheless. I'm sure the poor would be pleased to hear about this.
Networked digital systems are far from flawless, but they're far more highly evolved than our lumbering electoral process.
Katz doesn't really care whether the process is error-free; he just wants more "highly evolved" errors. Great, Katz.
As badly as we may need campaign finance reform to keep corporate money from polluting politics,...
We don't need any such thing. It's called "Freedom of Speech", Katz. See that First Amendment you love so much.
There are no uniform standards or procedures for collecting and tabulating votes.
Katz assumes that if the national government inflicts national standards on everyone, then we won't have problems with the election system we use. Dumb, Katz. Dumb.
they are dependent on ancient and unreliable tabulation systems in many parts of the country
So Katz would replace them with...new and unreliable tabulation systems? Great, Katz. No thanks.
There are serious about digital politics and online voting, and plenty of technical problems. One of the biggest would be political zealots, crackers and vandals, people breaking into a political system for fun or for uglier motives. It would definitely happen. But hacking a federal election is different from breaking into Microsoft or the New York Yankees' website. Tampering with elections is a felony with serious jail time.
Katz is also terminally naïve. Even though there is all sorts of computer crime going on even as we speak, and even though people commit felonies all the time, he thinks that crackers would be scared off of tampering with a computerized election. Wake up and smell the reality, Katz.
Approval voting, which Brams favors, dates to the 13th Century,
But Katz! That's "ancient!" You don't really mean that, do you??? What hypocrisy.
Katz, you fancy yourself an informed critic, but you are desperately far from being informed at all. The shallowness of your historical perspective is simply appalling. You far too readily condemn systems and ideas that have stood the test of centuries, in favor of the latest modern fad. Hint, Katz: there's nothing new under the sun. Your "ideas" have been done, and we don't use them because they don't work.
Or are you suggesting they're whining because they really did make a mistake -- but that they made the mistake simply because they're "stupid"?
I'm saying that any person who is willing to take even a minimal amount of care would be unable to screw up with that balloting system, so that in fact anyone whining now about having allegedly made a mistake was a fool.
By "minimal amount of care" I mean: reading the instructions posted everywhere. I mean asking the volunteers for assistance if something is unclear or hard to do. I mean asking for a replacement ballot if you happened to make a mistake. I mean bringing someone to help you vote if you know you might have problems (and any elderly person with serious vision or coordination problems darn well ought to know it), or else asking for assistance.
These are basics. This is not rocket science, and that balloting system is NOT hard to use. It's being described as a horrible trap for the elderly, but that is absolutely not the case.
The country should not be held hostage by a bunch of people who were so careless about their votes that they didn't bother to do even these minimal things.
Oh, and I should mention that I did not vote for Bush myself and do NOT want him to be President. I am concerned about what is right, and this whining is ridiculous.
the fact that the book would have some play in it allowing for the holes to misalign.
This turns out not to be the case. I used to live in Texas, and they used the same exact system that Palm Beach does (I recognized the format immediately).
There is NO "play" in the book. The actual ballot slips over two pins; if it's not on the pins, it's not in correctly (and this is made quite clear in the instructions all over the polling place). If it's not on the pins, the odds that you could have it misaligned by exactly one row (so that the hole you punch is actually one above/below what you intend) are approximately zero. Far more likely is that you'd be punching a non-perforated portion of the ballot, and this would affect the entire ballot.
The booklet itself is mounted to the frame into which the ballot is inserted. There is NO "free play" in them at all. Believe me, I've checked. Why did I check? Because I wanted to make absolutely certain that my ballot was correctly marked.
There's no getting around it. These people are whining, pure and simple.
superid is exactly right about what he says. This whining -- and that is exactly what is -- about the ballots is coming waaay too late.
Not only did both parties approve the ballot, but it was a Democrat who designed the thing. It's therefore ludicrous in the extreme for Gore babblers to even suggest that there was evildoing afoot with that ballot.
Not only this, but the ballot was sent out in advance to all registered voters. No one complained. No one.
I'm sorry, but Gore's people had three chances to correct what is really a perfectly clear ballot: at design time, at party approval time, and at voter approval time. No one complained. So now that they've possibly lost, they're sobbing about the ballot? This is ridiculous!
Last but not least: I agree with the other posters who have called for comparing the number of spoiled ballots in Palm Beach with the number of spoiled ballots from previous elections and from other areas around the country with similarly high concentrations of elderly voters. And I'd like to know how the Reform party did in Palm Beach in 1996 and 1992 before buying the assertion of the whiners that Buchanan could not have gotten all those votes legitimately (but even if it was due to voter incompetence, this is no reason for the Gore-ites to be screaming).
And Gore has been funded by Occidental Oil: no less "beholden" than Bush.
Under Reagan and Bush the deficit soared. Under Clinton and Gore it is going down.
Don't be naïve. Clinton/Gore had no more to do with the present budget surpluses than Reagan did with the deficits. In case you haven't read anything about the Constitution in the U.S., it is Congress that establishes the budget. It is Congress that establishes tax rates. The President has no power to legislate (modulo the unconstitutional "executive order," which really ought to be abolished) and he has no power to control how much of your money Congress wants to spend. The most that could be said is that Reagan signed a Democrat Congress's budget laws (which was stupid) and Clinton signs a GOP Congress's budget laws (which, while not smart, is less stupid).
instead of giving Bill Gates and H. Ross Perot a big tax cut they don't need,...
This isn't about "needs"; it's about justice. And it is unjust for the wealthiest to be taxed at higher rates than those who have less. The rates should be the same for everyone without exception. THAT is what is just.
he'll use the money to give more kids a chance at college and possibly a techie career. That's a big win in my book.
Why should I be forced at gunpoint to pay to educate your children? THAT is a big loss in my book.
Women and men should have to right to decide if they want to reproduce.
Nice rhetoric, but that's not what you mean. What you mean is that anyone (including teens) should be free to have sex whenever, wherever, however, and with whomever (or whatever) they wish, without consequences. This is simple libertinism, and it's disgusting. The fact is that men and women have ALWAYS had the "right" to decide whether to reproduce: they could simply abstain from sex. The fact that you consider this (as I'm sure you do) to be "unrealistic" or whatever betrays that what you are really after is sex without consequences (hence the Left's similar commitment to finding cures to diseases that are only prevalent among the sexually profligate). The world doesn't work that way.
I think his point is that maybe it's time for consensus to be reached on a few points. if he wanted to enforce policy he wouldn't be putting out pages of arguments for why we need to discuss it...
Among other things he wants to enforce policy, for he complains loudly about the lack of policy enforcement in Unix.
Furthermore, he is already actively enforcing policy: I cannot use Gnumeric unless I install the whole of Gnome. Sorry, but that's one less Gnumeric user in the world (I'd like to give it a try, but not at the expense of all of Gnome. And no, I'm not a KDE user, either).
If he wasn't actively enforcing policy, then there would be configure options for turning off Gnome. Alternatively, Gnumeric would simply use those features for which library support is installed on the box. We get neither of these options from Miguel; instead we get policy enforcement.
Think about this: you're working on "rebuilding that damn kernel" instead of doing something useful with that OS that doesn't suck.
What he is doing is configuring his computer so that it works the way he wants, and not the way that some developer think it ought to work. He is not limited to the list of options that some developer offers him (as you invariably are with any GUI); he is able to select from a virtually limitless set of configuration options.
This is not necessarily "tinkering;" Frequently it's necessary for actually getting work done. Developers can't know or guess all the ways that people might wish to use software. Configurability is an absolute necessity, and it is this that GUIs destroy (and no, I'm not talking about having your choice of 12,000 themes).
Miguel says that Unix won't be around in 10 years. How many times have we heard that mantra from other naysayers? The simple fact is that it is the ultimate flexibility of Unix that has allowed it to stand the test of time. This is something that no Microsoft trash can track. I'll listen to Miguel's complaints when he has designed an operating system that has lasted for 30 years. Until then, he's just a young grasshopper who doesn't understand the wisdom of the Masters. He's not one hand clapping; he's no hands clapping.
Miguel grunts about comparing the best features of A with the worst features of B: this is a valid criticism. Yet he goes on to do the very same when he complains about a lack of code reuse in various daemons. I'll agree with him that there could be some reuse with respect to error handling and the like, but come now: these are applications with very different responsibilities, after the Unix model of doing one thing and doing it well.
In short, I think that Miguel has Microsoft envy. I don't. I can't wait to finish my work for the day (customers haven't yet been liberated from Microsoft slavery) and get back to working on a real operating system that I set up to work the way that *I* think is best: not the way that Miguel thinks is best, nor even a way that is just one of a number of ways that Miguel provides.
That is real flexibility, and there is no way on this earth that I'll give it up. Let the clueless learn on Microsoft dreck. Linux doesn't need to "succeed"; it's a free operating system!
...if 70 million people do something that is at odds with the government, under OUR form of government (the United States since you're from Rio Linden), it means the current law is wrong. that's democracy.
No, that is "mob rule" and it is specifically one of the things that the Founders feared. This country was founded as a Republic, not a democracy.
Really, this is one of the most bizarre "standards" I've ever heard of. So when a majority of the citizens of this country had no problem with slavery, does that mean that it was then right? When a majority of people in this country believed that women had no business voting, does that mean that it was then right? What sort of bizarre worldview do you have, anyway?:-)
Besides, it bears pointing out that your 70 million people is more than just a little short of an actual majority; there are over 250 million citizens in this country, which means that your paltry 70 million is at MOST just 28% of the population. Which leaves a 72% super-majority, which is very nearly sufficient for passing a constitutional amendment.
No offense meant, but I suggest you spend a bit more time thinking about your standard here.
But, there is a generation between the 50's and the 90's that didn't really have the same "touch typing" classes in school.... And... in the 50's it was High School, in the 90's it was grade school.
Uhh...no offense, but this seems muddled. First you say that they didn't have typing classes (of course, they really did; typewriters have been around for about a century), and then that the problem was that the classes only appeared in high school.
Actually I took my first typing class in 8th grade -- hardly high school -- and that was back in the 70s.
Nevertheless, you are probably right that this is aimed at people who have absolutely no clue about technology, because a keyboard is by far the fastest way to get text entered into a computer (short of OCR, anyway...). No dopey handwriting recognition software is going to be dominating the country's code factories, and that is a fact.
You're sort of right, and sort of wrong. Patents are on ways of implementing ideas. Specific implementations are covered by copyright.
You're sort of wrong. The cotton gin was not and could not be covered by copyright. It is not a published work. Further, the patent on the cotton gin meant that no one could make competing cotton gins (though this wasn't enforced all that well, and Whitney wasn't amused IIRC). Thus it was not merely the idea that was covered by the patent, but the implementation as well.
I'm sure others have commented upon this, but I'm going to pile on anyway.
The problem is NOT a lack of regulation. For starters, the regulators are always eventually captured by whatever they're allegedly regulating anyway, so the net result of more regulation would be benefits for the industry.
Or did you not ever wonder why you get such poor service from government-protected (i.e., regulated) monopolies?
More importantly, the answer to the problem is very very simple:
Stop buying Microsoft's trash. Stop buying anyone's trash who tries to inflict this kind of crap on you as a condition of the sale.
There are alternatives now. Use free software. Not only is it of vastly higher quality, you actually own it: you're not getting just a license (GPL-covered stuff gets a conditional exception here since it imposes a condition upon that ownership).
I don't understand why a Linux user cares about the abuse Microsoft heaps upon their users anyway. Just say "No thanks, Bill!" and walk away.
no, dilberately destroying the value of something that another person owns is arson/vandilism/defamation (destroying the value of their character). the idea of theft is increasing your assests by decreasing someone else's assests(against their will)
Incorrect. Robin Hood was a thief even though he gave the stolen goods to other people.
to say using napster is theft is wrong becuase you're being too general.
In the first place, I didn't even mention Napster. In the second place, I carefully indicated that what I was criticizing was gross copyright violation: In the same way, giving away a zillion copies of copyrighted [anything] destroys the value of that [anything] to the one who produced it/owns the copyright. I fully agree that Fair Use covers the creation and trading of MP3s among those who actually own the CDs involved. I have absolutely no problem with that.
if the person d/ling the mp3 doesnt have, and never would have bought the cd(because they couldnt afford it, whatever) then that is ONLY copyright infringement, because they arent lessening the copyright holders [potential]assests.
False. Again, this is a moral dodge. "I wouldn't have ever bought a stereo anyway, so I can go ahead and steal one." It is wonderfully convenient for the thief to soothe his injured conscience like that: "I would never consider buying this CD, so it's okay for me to rip off MP3s of it." This is preposterous, and I sincerely hope you weren't serious.
There is a simple solution to those cases where you can't/won't buy a CD:
Copying is devaluing someone elses property, which is wrong, but only a fraction as bad as stealing.
You're on the right track but reach the wrong conclusion. Deliberately destroying the value of something that another person owns is a form of theft. For instance, inflationary monetary policy is stealing: the government makes each of our dollars worth less than what they used to be worth. That is theft: they are taking away the value of our money.
In the same way, giving away a zillion copies of copyrighted [anything] destroys the value of that [anything] to the one who produced it/owns the copyright.
I'm not suggesting necessarily that this is true of you, but a number of people posting here are hopelessly blind to the fact of what precisely is happening when they give away STOLEN copies of music. They are saying that because the owner of the copyright still has his copy, nothing has actually been taken from him.
This is a pathetic moral dodge. It is a feeble attempt at excusing one's behavior. A lot of these people are smarter than this, which is why it's surprising that they would hope to persuade or confound others with such blatant nonsense.
Clue time, folks: the copyright owner is not saying that you've taken his copy. Duh. He is saying that you have damaged (in some cases severely) his ability to profit from his work. He profits by selling copies of his music for others to enjoy. You are destroying his ability to earn a living at doing so when you give away copies.
How hard is this to figure out? If a person is not satisfied at the return on his investment in making music, he is less likely to make music. In some cases he may not be able to do so at all because he will be forced into other work that does not afford him the resources necessary to make music.
You bozos need to wake up and realize that the net result of this continued stealing will be one of two things. Either the feds will start regulating the Internet in a *serious* way, OR you will drive musicians out of the music business. Or both.
Either way: get ready to enjoy a far less luxuriant lifestyle.
I'm not telling the producer how he can use what he creates, I'm objecting to him telling me what I can do with it.
Silly man. If you deny Dylan the right to set the terms under which he will let you buy a copy of his singing, then Dylan will stop offering it for sale.
Theft, although IANAL, as far as I have been able to determine the legal definition of theft has to do with deprevation of property. Or theft of services (typ. receiving some service and not paying for it)
Copyright infringement appears to be seperate. If you have something hard to indicate otherwise I'd like to see it. It never hurts to learn more.
Copyright is a protection of something else. What is involved in producing music (or anything)? A producer must invest scarce time and scarce resources of other sorts in order to produce a thing. Why does he do so? Normally, he does so because he hopes to get something in return that he values more than what he has invested. Normally this is money, but it doesn't have to be. In the case of the time I spend with my child, it surely isn't: the return on my investment of time in my child is (for me) entirely non-material. Nevertheless, it is an investment of capital: the scarce resource of time.
Getting back to the present issue, a producer of music hopes to get something back in exchange for the investment of his time and other resources in creating music. What he typically hopes to get back is money. If he (for whatever reason) decides that he is not getting as much money back for his music as he wants, he will stop investing so much time and energy (and other resources) in creating music (either by reducing his investment, or by eliminating it entirely).
And this is entirely the point: the musician decides what is enough compensation. In other words, the producer of the good decides what he will accept in exchange for his good. If he doesn't get it, he is entirely likely to reduce or eliminate production.
So we see that what copyright is actually protecting is the producer's right to get what he wants in exchange for his products. If copyright protection is removed, there will be FAR LESS incentive for the producers of certain forms of goods to continue producing them. And that means that the supply WILL be reduced.
Now then, if I read you correctly, you argue that Alice has all rights over something she creates. I dispute this.
Then you either misunderstand or are simply mistaken. See above. If Alice is dissatisfied with the compensation she can receive for producing a thing, Alice will almost certainly stop producing it.
At least in part I think you misunderstand something, whether you're mistaken or not. The fact that Alice decides the terms of the sale doesn't mean that normally she can be draconian if she actually wants to make a sale. Why? Because by doing so she is doing two things:
She is offering less for sale than other sellers who are not so draconian.
That means that her price is actually higher.
The effect of this is that she will have fewer buyers (and if she's really draconian, she may have none at all). Nevertheless, it is SHE that decides her price, whether that price be foolishly high or not. Thus your "SECOND" point is really toothless.
I'd go on longer, but really I've spent far too much time on this as it is. The opportunity costs are building, and I am unwilling to pay them anymore:-)
Summary: you're going to have to deal with the economic arguments I've made. Music production -- or production of anything else -- doesn't happen in a vacuum. There is no such thing as a cost-free enterprise. Because there are nearly zero providers of any given product at zero price (setting aside those few who do so for love or other reasons), reducing the compensation available to those who are selling a thing will *always* reduce the supply available.
Wanton copying of recorded music MUST and WILL result in the production of less music. It is inevitable. Free music is essentially the same as saying "almost no music."
So what you're saying, is that if art were not bought, then people would stop producing it. Or, to be more accurate. Art would not be produced by people who wanted to sell it, and would only be made by people who were making it for the fun of it.
Of course I was speaking in general terms. Obviously people give things away now: but an economy based upon gifts or charity cannot be as prosperous as ours. It's a simple impossibility.
Sure, there will still be *some* art if no one's paying for it, but NOT in the quantity that we have today. This is not difficult:
At zero price there are very few suppliers of any given economic good.
Those who steal from musicians are not only robbing the producers of music; if a culture of larceny builds around that theft, eventually there will be nearly zero producers of music. It's unavoidable. Very few people are willing to give away the fruits of their labor. This is part of why communism is such an abominable lie.
It's not theft unless you deprive the original posessor of his copy. A fine point, but an important one.
False. Among the costs associated with producing anything are the opportunities that were *foregone* in order to produce it. If I spend an hour playing with my child, I forego the income I might otherwise have earned. That money is the cost of my time with my child. I happen to think it is money well "spent."
In the same way, a musician loses the money that he would otherwise have obtained if you make a copy of his music and give it to someone else. He has a right to set the conditions under which he will give you a copy of his music. By circumventing them, you are robbing him of that right. No matter how you slice it, it is an undeniable fact that at zero price there are going to be VERY FEW musicians, and EVEN LESS music of high quality. It's simple supply and demand.
By YOUR argument, you pretty clearly believe that copyrights are total, absolute and permanent. Thus in your little fantasy world, if copyright holder Foo sells a CD they are not only within their rights, but acting morally by:
*Prohibiting people from reselling copies of the CD
Your reductio doesn't work because you misrepresent what I think about copyright. Understand what I am saying: the owner of a thing has the right to declare the terms under which he will part with it. Do you disagree with that?
It so happens that our copyright laws are not a perfect embodiment of that principle. For instance, our copyright laws declare that ownership of copyrighted materials ends after 'x' years. Now, there may be good arguments in favor of this arrangements, but it is a violation of the producer's property rights. It just so happens that very few (if any) producers find these restrictions to be egregious -- and so they keep producing. Completely deny them the right to profit as they see fit, and you can kiss production goodbye. It won't survive, except as folk art.
Further, if producers set such egregious restrictions upon use of their goods, they would have *very* few buyers. They would be within their rights, but no one would be buying from them. They would be buying from other, more enlightened producers who charge less for the same sort of product (yes, Virginia, restrictions on use are a part of the price of a good).
Now having demonstrated that your argument goes _way_ too far and crashes and burns,
You've done nothing of the sort. You've interpolated what you *think* is my position.
Now, were there any creative works produced before the creation of copyright laws? Why, YES, there WERE.
And I suppose there was enough music being created to support a whole billion-dollar recording industry (had such things existed), right? Why, NO, there WASN'T. Don't be a silly fool. If Gribnak the Younger isn't being paid to create music in the 14th century, Gribnak the Younger isn't going to be creating it. He's going to be scrabbling in the fields with his family, hoping to find or grow enough potatoes to feed himself and his children. Oh sure, they might invent a song to while away their time while they work -- but very little of it will have ANY quality at all.
While you might not believe it there are no small number of people in this world who create potentially valuable pieces of art and give them away because they want to. To them the only value is the beauty of the piece. It has no monetary value to such a person.
To the contrary, O Silly One. The number of people willing to give away their produce is really minuscule relative to the whole population of the earth. And the foolishness of such people means that they must spend MORE time doing OTHER work, which means that they have LESS time for doing what they WANT. The result: LESS ART. Duh.
Simple economics, O Silly One. It's inescapable. Art is a scarce resource. People willing to produce it for nothing are even scarcer.
We'll continue this if and only if you begin your next post with a refutation of the law of supply and demand.
The same incentive you have in paying to goto school.Yes -- and note: I'm PAYING. I am exchanging something I have -- money -- for something I want more: guild certification of expertise in a given discipline. I pay in other ways, too: sitting through dull lectures; suffering through the academic hazing of freshman-level courses; buying books that will be out of date shortly after I purchase them; etc.
You don't seem to understand what is actually being purchased by your tuition. It's not the education; you can get that without all the academic nonsense. No, you're paying for guild certification. The guild of University professors certifies that you have demonstrated a certain level of expertise in a given discipline(s). Because this is what you are buying from them, they have the right to set the price as they see fit. It just so happens that the price (USUALLY) includes doing the work involved with getting an education -- but as I said, you could do all that yourself, if you try hard.
But your payment for that guild certification takes other forms as well: writing papers that unscrupulous professors will mine for material they can use themselves, for instance. These are all costs of getting that guild certification -- err, degree.
If you can't vision a world with out money, where people do things that are good and share them with everyone. Then you must live one shallow life.
Don't be silly. Of course people do this, even now. It's called "charity" or "gift-giving." These are nonsensical bases for an economy, and simply would not work.
Slashdot Mirror
"You Nazis have committed unspeakable acts of utter barbarity against the Jews! By the way, can we see your research files?"
Bush revealed himself as a political opportunist with respect to this issue. This was not a decision made on the basis of any firm moral principles he allegedly holds. If he's pro-life, he sold the store; if he's not, then why any restrictions at all?
It's also the place where Robert Louis Stevenson breathed his last (and he's buried there; I've seen a photo of him when he lived on the island, and he was one sickly puppy dog).
The history lesson was thrown in for free.
First, I'll note that you didn't address the other issue I mentioned: allegedly man-generated "global warming" being at fault in the melting of an Icelandic glacier (in an area where farming was done just 3-4 centuries ago). This fact suggests that what we have here are cycles of global temperature variation, and that we are simply coming round for another period on the warm side.
Secondly, I don't agree with this absurdist position of the global warming hacks at all: if global temperatures go up, I expect to find average temperatures in my region going UP, not down. This counter-intuitive "Well, global warming will cause really cold temperatures too" is nothing but utter nonsense: is the planet warming up or not?
I have no problem with the idea that "global warming" - if it were actually occurring - would generate more violent storms, droughts, hurricanes, etc. It is simply a fool's errand to attempt to explain colder than average temperatures (over an entire season, in an entire region, mind you) as the product of generally "increasing" temperatures.
And this doesn't even begin to address issues of causality, nor the problems associated with the fact that the data collection for this alleged "warming" occurs around cities (which are always warmer anyway).
Where we live, we just "enjoyed" one of the coldest, snowiest winters on record: in the top 10 in recorded history. But of course, the acolytes of global warming will (om-mane-padme-om) have an explanation, right?
One little bit of info that the g.w. religionists like to point to is a receding glacier in Iceland. Problem is, they don't check their history records: the valley where the glacier is now was used for agriculture in the 1700s!
"Global warming" is pure "B" as in "B", "S" as in "S". It is a pack of lies being dumped on us for the purpose of justifying more government regulation.
Don't believe the hype.
As to today's ruling: it can by no means be considered to be contrary to states' rights. Conservatives are not 100% "states' rights," if by that you mean that the states trump the Constitution all the time. They do not.
The Constitution specifies that it is the state legislatures (not the state judiciaries) that determines how electors are appointed. That fact means that this is NOT just a states' rights issue. It is Constitutional.
Furthermore, the federal law in U.S.C. 3 that requires the election laws to be in place before the election is perfectly in keeping with both the Constitution and simple justice. Ex post facto "law" is not law at all; it is tyranny, and no judge or court has the right to change the rules after the game has been played. But this is what Al Gore et. al. have been attempting. They have been desperately seeking a judge to overturn the laws of Florida. It's pathetic.
Oh, please. You can't have it both ways. Either I stole it from someone or I invented it myself (possibly simultaneously with others).
I will grant that I wasn't trying to be original; I was critiquing a fool's rant. It's entirely obvious that Katz doesn't give much thought to what he writes, as the logical and historical errors in his columns almost always demonstrate. One need not have original or stolen ideas to nevertheless be "insightful" in pointing out a writer's errors (and I do not mean to say that I was "insightful" or "interesting;" I'm merely pointing out that neither of those descriptions requires "ideas" and can apply to one's analysis of another's writing).
You're not a Gore drone, are you? Or are you Katz himself? :-)
No, I'm not a Bush drone; I didn't vote for him and would never even consider voting for him. I simply reject the fantasies of those who suppose -- as Katz does -- that there's something wrong with the system. There's nothing wrong with it. Gore and his gang of election thieves could figure out a way to steal the election under *any* voting scheme we might devise, and it's simply absurd to pretend otherwise.
Our system of government has always assumed and depended upon the fundamental notion that the citizens must be virtuous, because without that it cannot work. Gore's chicanery (preceded by Clinton's in the impeachment) is simply evidence of the veracity of what the Founders believed: the Republic cannot survive if the people are not virtuous.
Our system for electing presidents takes too long. Rubbish. Under normal circumstances it does NOT take long. This happens to be a very close election with an increasing amount of political fighting instigated by a poor loser (that would be Gore).
the country that helped give birth to the Net administers its political system in an inconvenient, mish-mashed network of ancient and inconvenient systems, confusing methodology and out-of-touch bureaucracies, all right out of the 18th century.
This is an adequate example of Katz's historical myopia. If it's older than he is, it can't be any good -- or so says Katz. Of course this is pure nonsense. Katz has no problem with that good 'ol "ancient" First Amendment, though.
What part of a punch card system comes from the 18th century, Katz? Which modern American bureaucracy dates from the 18th century, Katz?
Science and technology -- however far from infallible -- could also help address some of the other problems surfacing in last week's election fiasco.
This is laughable. Everyone in the Gore campaign is sputtering and fuming about the errors and failures in Florida, and Katz wants to replace it with...another fallible system! What a "brilliant" idea! Note to Katz: fallible sytems fail. That's why they're fallible. Absent physical data as we have now, exactly how would we verify an election if we were to go to a digital election system as you so blithely recommend?
We are hearing about poorly-designed ballots Baloney. That ballot was NOT, NOT, NOT poorly designed. As has been demonstrated in various news reports, 2nd graders have been able to successfully fill that ballot out. Whining about that ballot after the fact is pure sour grapes. The ballot was designed by Democrats, approved by Democrats, and sent in advance to every registered voter in the county. No complaints. If these whiners really did screw up, they were a) incompetent (because it was NOT hard to fill out that ballot), and b) unworthy of the privilege of voting, because they failed to exert even a tiny bit of energy to get help with it at the time they were voting -- which shows the contempt in which they held their privilege.
And that's just out of Palm Beach County in Florida, one of the richest communities in the nation. Imagine the potential scandals and sloppiness still lying uncovered in the rest of the country.
In Katz's demented worldview, having less money implies carelessness about a solemn privilege. He has no evidence for such an assertion, but he makes it nonetheless. I'm sure the poor would be pleased to hear about this.
Networked digital systems are far from flawless, but they're far more highly evolved than our lumbering electoral process.
Katz doesn't really care whether the process is error-free; he just wants more "highly evolved" errors. Great, Katz.
As badly as we may need campaign finance reform to keep corporate money from polluting politics,...
We don't need any such thing. It's called "Freedom of Speech", Katz. See that First Amendment you love so much.
There are no uniform standards or procedures for collecting and tabulating votes.
Katz assumes that if the national government inflicts national standards on everyone, then we won't have problems with the election system we use. Dumb, Katz. Dumb.
they are dependent on ancient and unreliable tabulation systems in many parts of the country
So Katz would replace them with...new and unreliable tabulation systems? Great, Katz. No thanks.
There are serious about digital politics and online voting, and plenty of technical problems. One of the biggest would be political zealots, crackers and vandals, people breaking into a political system for fun or for uglier motives. It would definitely happen. But hacking a federal election is different from breaking into Microsoft or the New York Yankees' website. Tampering with elections is a felony with serious jail time.
Katz is also terminally naïve. Even though there is all sorts of computer crime going on even as we speak, and even though people commit felonies all the time, he thinks that crackers would be scared off of tampering with a computerized election. Wake up and smell the reality, Katz.
Approval voting, which Brams favors, dates to the 13th Century,
But Katz! That's "ancient!" You don't really mean that, do you??? What hypocrisy.
Katz, you fancy yourself an informed critic, but you are desperately far from being informed at all. The shallowness of your historical perspective is simply appalling. You far too readily condemn systems and ideas that have stood the test of centuries, in favor of the latest modern fad. Hint, Katz: there's nothing new under the sun. Your "ideas" have been done, and we don't use them because they don't work.
I'm saying that any person who is willing to take even a minimal amount of care would be unable to screw up with that balloting system, so that in fact anyone whining now about having allegedly made a mistake was a fool.
By "minimal amount of care" I mean: reading the instructions posted everywhere. I mean asking the volunteers for assistance if something is unclear or hard to do. I mean asking for a replacement ballot if you happened to make a mistake. I mean bringing someone to help you vote if you know you might have problems (and any elderly person with serious vision or coordination problems darn well ought to know it), or else asking for assistance.
These are basics. This is not rocket science, and that balloting system is NOT hard to use. It's being described as a horrible trap for the elderly, but that is absolutely not the case.
The country should not be held hostage by a bunch of people who were so careless about their votes that they didn't bother to do even these minimal things.
Oh, and I should mention that I did not vote for Bush myself and do NOT want him to be President. I am concerned about what is right, and this whining is ridiculous.
This turns out not to be the case. I used to live in Texas, and they used the same exact system that Palm Beach does (I recognized the format immediately).
There is NO "play" in the book. The actual ballot slips over two pins; if it's not on the pins, it's not in correctly (and this is made quite clear in the instructions all over the polling place). If it's not on the pins, the odds that you could have it misaligned by exactly one row (so that the hole you punch is actually one above/below what you intend) are approximately zero. Far more likely is that you'd be punching a non-perforated portion of the ballot, and this would affect the entire ballot.
The booklet itself is mounted to the frame into which the ballot is inserted. There is NO "free play" in them at all. Believe me, I've checked. Why did I check? Because I wanted to make absolutely certain that my ballot was correctly marked.
There's no getting around it. These people are whining, pure and simple.
Not only did both parties approve the ballot, but it was a Democrat who designed the thing. It's therefore ludicrous in the extreme for Gore babblers to even suggest that there was evildoing afoot with that ballot.
Not only this, but the ballot was sent out in advance to all registered voters. No one complained. No one.
I'm sorry, but Gore's people had three chances to correct what is really a perfectly clear ballot: at design time, at party approval time, and at voter approval time. No one complained. So now that they've possibly lost, they're sobbing about the ballot? This is ridiculous!
Last but not least: I agree with the other posters who have called for comparing the number of spoiled ballots in Palm Beach with the number of spoiled ballots from previous elections and from other areas around the country with similarly high concentrations of elderly voters. And I'd like to know how the Reform party did in Palm Beach in 1996 and 1992 before buying the assertion of the whiners that Buchanan could not have gotten all those votes legitimately (but even if it was due to voter incompetence, this is no reason for the Gore-ites to be screaming).
Oh -- and no, I didn't vote for Bush.
And Gore has been funded by Occidental Oil: no less "beholden" than Bush.
Under Reagan and Bush the deficit soared. Under Clinton and Gore it is going down.
Don't be naïve. Clinton/Gore had no more to do with the present budget surpluses than Reagan did with the deficits. In case you haven't read anything about the Constitution in the U.S., it is Congress that establishes the budget. It is Congress that establishes tax rates. The President has no power to legislate (modulo the unconstitutional "executive order," which really ought to be abolished) and he has no power to control how much of your money Congress wants to spend. The most that could be said is that Reagan signed a Democrat Congress's budget laws (which was stupid) and Clinton signs a GOP Congress's budget laws (which, while not smart, is less stupid).
instead of giving Bill Gates and H. Ross Perot a big tax cut they don't need,...
This isn't about "needs"; it's about justice. And it is unjust for the wealthiest to be taxed at higher rates than those who have less. The rates should be the same for everyone without exception. THAT is what is just.
he'll use the money to give more kids a chance at college and possibly a techie career. That's a big win in my book.
Why should I be forced at gunpoint to pay to educate your children? THAT is a big loss in my book.
Women and men should have to right to decide if they want to reproduce.
Nice rhetoric, but that's not what you mean. What you mean is that anyone (including teens) should be free to have sex whenever, wherever, however, and with whomever (or whatever) they wish, without consequences. This is simple libertinism, and it's disgusting. The fact is that men and women have ALWAYS had the "right" to decide whether to reproduce: they could simply abstain from sex. The fact that you consider this (as I'm sure you do) to be "unrealistic" or whatever betrays that what you are really after is sex without consequences (hence the Left's similar commitment to finding cures to diseases that are only prevalent among the sexually profligate). The world doesn't work that way.
Among other things he wants to enforce policy, for he complains loudly about the lack of policy enforcement in Unix.
Furthermore, he is already actively enforcing policy: I cannot use Gnumeric unless I install the whole of Gnome. Sorry, but that's one less Gnumeric user in the world (I'd like to give it a try, but not at the expense of all of Gnome. And no, I'm not a KDE user, either).
If he wasn't actively enforcing policy, then there would be configure options for turning off Gnome. Alternatively, Gnumeric would simply use those features for which library support is installed on the box. We get neither of these options from Miguel; instead we get policy enforcement.
Hello Microsoft.
What he is doing is configuring his computer so that it works the way he wants, and not the way that some developer think it ought to work. He is not limited to the list of options that some developer offers him (as you invariably are with any GUI); he is able to select from a virtually limitless set of configuration options.
This is not necessarily "tinkering;" Frequently it's necessary for actually getting work done. Developers can't know or guess all the ways that people might wish to use software. Configurability is an absolute necessity, and it is this that GUIs destroy (and no, I'm not talking about having your choice of 12,000 themes).
Miguel says that Unix won't be around in 10 years. How many times have we heard that mantra from other naysayers? The simple fact is that it is the ultimate flexibility of Unix that has allowed it to stand the test of time. This is something that no Microsoft trash can track. I'll listen to Miguel's complaints when he has designed an operating system that has lasted for 30 years. Until then, he's just a young grasshopper who doesn't understand the wisdom of the Masters. He's not one hand clapping; he's no hands clapping.
Miguel grunts about comparing the best features of A with the worst features of B: this is a valid criticism. Yet he goes on to do the very same when he complains about a lack of code reuse in various daemons. I'll agree with him that there could be some reuse with respect to error handling and the like, but come now: these are applications with very different responsibilities, after the Unix model of doing one thing and doing it well.
In short, I think that Miguel has Microsoft envy. I don't. I can't wait to finish my work for the day (customers haven't yet been liberated from Microsoft slavery) and get back to working on a real operating system that I set up to work the way that *I* think is best: not the way that Miguel thinks is best, nor even a way that is just one of a number of ways that Miguel provides.
That is real flexibility, and there is no way on this earth that I'll give it up. Let the clueless learn on Microsoft dreck. Linux doesn't need to "succeed"; it's a free operating system!
No, that is "mob rule" and it is specifically one of the things that the Founders feared. This country was founded as a Republic, not a democracy.
Really, this is one of the most bizarre "standards" I've ever heard of. So when a majority of the citizens of this country had no problem with slavery, does that mean that it was then right? When a majority of people in this country believed that women had no business voting, does that mean that it was then right? What sort of bizarre worldview do you have, anyway? :-)
Besides, it bears pointing out that your 70 million people is more than just a little short of an actual majority; there are over 250 million citizens in this country, which means that your paltry 70 million is at MOST just 28% of the population. Which leaves a 72% super-majority, which is very nearly sufficient for passing a constitutional amendment.
No offense meant, but I suggest you spend a bit more time thinking about your standard here.
Uhh...no offense, but this seems muddled. First you say that they didn't have typing classes (of course, they really did; typewriters have been around for about a century), and then that the problem was that the classes only appeared in high school.
Actually I took my first typing class in 8th grade -- hardly high school -- and that was back in the 70s.
Nevertheless, you are probably right that this is aimed at people who have absolutely no clue about technology, because a keyboard is by far the fastest way to get text entered into a computer (short of OCR, anyway...). No dopey handwriting recognition software is going to be dominating the country's code factories, and that is a fact.
Now there's an interesting standard for ethics.
You're sort of wrong. The cotton gin was not and could not be covered by copyright. It is not a published work. Further, the patent on the cotton gin meant that no one could make competing cotton gins (though this wasn't enforced all that well, and Whitney wasn't amused IIRC). Thus it was not merely the idea that was covered by the patent, but the implementation as well.
The problem is NOT a lack of regulation. For starters, the regulators are always eventually captured by whatever they're allegedly regulating anyway, so the net result of more regulation would be benefits for the industry.
Or did you not ever wonder why you get such poor service from government-protected (i.e., regulated) monopolies?
More importantly, the answer to the problem is very very simple:
Stop buying Microsoft's trash. Stop buying anyone's trash who tries to inflict this kind of crap on you as a condition of the sale.
There are alternatives now. Use free software. Not only is it of vastly higher quality, you actually own it: you're not getting just a license (GPL-covered stuff gets a conditional exception here since it imposes a condition upon that ownership).
I don't understand why a Linux user cares about the abuse Microsoft heaps upon their users anyway. Just say "No thanks, Bill!" and walk away.
Incorrect. Robin Hood was a thief even though he gave the stolen goods to other people.
to say using napster is theft is wrong becuase you're being too general.
In the first place, I didn't even mention Napster. In the second place, I carefully indicated that what I was criticizing was gross copyright violation: In the same way, giving away a zillion copies of copyrighted [anything] destroys the value of that [anything] to the one who produced it/owns the copyright. I fully agree that Fair Use covers the creation and trading of MP3s among those who actually own the CDs involved. I have absolutely no problem with that.
if the person d/ling the mp3 doesnt have, and never would have bought the cd(because they couldnt afford it, whatever) then that is ONLY copyright infringement, because they arent lessening the copyright holders [potential]assests.
False. Again, this is a moral dodge. "I wouldn't have ever bought a stereo anyway, so I can go ahead and steal one." It is wonderfully convenient for the thief to soothe his injured conscience like that: "I would never consider buying this CD, so it's okay for me to rip off MP3s of it." This is preposterous, and I sincerely hope you weren't serious.
There is a simple solution to those cases where you can't/won't buy a CD:
DON'T MAKE OR OBTAIN MP3s OF IT.
You're on the right track but reach the wrong conclusion. Deliberately destroying the value of something that another person owns is a form of theft. For instance, inflationary monetary policy is stealing: the government makes each of our dollars worth less than what they used to be worth. That is theft: they are taking away the value of our money.
In the same way, giving away a zillion copies of copyrighted [anything] destroys the value of that [anything] to the one who produced it/owns the copyright.
I'm not suggesting necessarily that this is true of you, but a number of people posting here are hopelessly blind to the fact of what precisely is happening when they give away STOLEN copies of music. They are saying that because the owner of the copyright still has his copy, nothing has actually been taken from him.
This is a pathetic moral dodge. It is a feeble attempt at excusing one's behavior. A lot of these people are smarter than this, which is why it's surprising that they would hope to persuade or confound others with such blatant nonsense.
Clue time, folks: the copyright owner is not saying that you've taken his copy. Duh. He is saying that you have damaged (in some cases severely) his ability to profit from his work. He profits by selling copies of his music for others to enjoy. You are destroying his ability to earn a living at doing so when you give away copies.
How hard is this to figure out? If a person is not satisfied at the return on his investment in making music, he is less likely to make music. In some cases he may not be able to do so at all because he will be forced into other work that does not afford him the resources necessary to make music.
You bozos need to wake up and realize that the net result of this continued stealing will be one of two things. Either the feds will start regulating the Internet in a *serious* way, OR you will drive musicians out of the music business. Or both.
Either way: get ready to enjoy a far less luxuriant lifestyle.
Silly man. If you deny Dylan the right to set the terms under which he will let you buy a copy of his singing, then Dylan will stop offering it for sale.
Everybody loses.
Copyright infringement appears to be seperate. If you have something hard to indicate otherwise I'd like to see it. It never hurts to learn more.
Copyright is a protection of something else. What is involved in producing music (or anything)? A producer must invest scarce time and scarce resources of other sorts in order to produce a thing. Why does he do so? Normally, he does so because he hopes to get something in return that he values more than what he has invested. Normally this is money, but it doesn't have to be. In the case of the time I spend with my child, it surely isn't: the return on my investment of time in my child is (for me) entirely non-material. Nevertheless, it is an investment of capital: the scarce resource of time.
Getting back to the present issue, a producer of music hopes to get something back in exchange for the investment of his time and other resources in creating music. What he typically hopes to get back is money. If he (for whatever reason) decides that he is not getting as much money back for his music as he wants, he will stop investing so much time and energy (and other resources) in creating music (either by reducing his investment, or by eliminating it entirely).
And this is entirely the point: the musician decides what is enough compensation. In other words, the producer of the good decides what he will accept in exchange for his good. If he doesn't get it, he is entirely likely to reduce or eliminate production.
So we see that what copyright is actually protecting is the producer's right to get what he wants in exchange for his products. If copyright protection is removed, there will be FAR LESS incentive for the producers of certain forms of goods to continue producing them. And that means that the supply WILL be reduced.
Now then, if I read you correctly, you argue that Alice has all rights over something she creates. I dispute this.
Then you either misunderstand or are simply mistaken. See above. If Alice is dissatisfied with the compensation she can receive for producing a thing, Alice will almost certainly stop producing it.
At least in part I think you misunderstand something, whether you're mistaken or not. The fact that Alice decides the terms of the sale doesn't mean that normally she can be draconian if she actually wants to make a sale. Why? Because by doing so she is doing two things:
She is offering less for sale than other sellers who are not so draconian.
That means that her price is actually higher.
The effect of this is that she will have fewer buyers (and if she's really draconian, she may have none at all). Nevertheless, it is SHE that decides her price, whether that price be foolishly high or not. Thus your "SECOND" point is really toothless.
I'd go on longer, but really I've spent far too much time on this as it is. The opportunity costs are building, and I am unwilling to pay them anymore :-)
Summary: you're going to have to deal with the economic arguments I've made. Music production -- or production of anything else -- doesn't happen in a vacuum. There is no such thing as a cost-free enterprise. Because there are nearly zero providers of any given product at zero price (setting aside those few who do so for love or other reasons), reducing the compensation available to those who are selling a thing will *always* reduce the supply available.
Wanton copying of recorded music MUST and WILL result in the production of less music. It is inevitable. Free music is essentially the same as saying "almost no music."
Of course I was speaking in general terms. Obviously people give things away now: but an economy based upon gifts or charity cannot be as prosperous as ours. It's a simple impossibility.
Sure, there will still be *some* art if no one's paying for it, but NOT in the quantity that we have today. This is not difficult:
At zero price there are very few suppliers of any given economic good.
Those who steal from musicians are not only robbing the producers of music; if a culture of larceny builds around that theft, eventually there will be nearly zero producers of music. It's unavoidable. Very few people are willing to give away the fruits of their labor. This is part of why communism is such an abominable lie.
False. Among the costs associated with producing anything are the opportunities that were *foregone* in order to produce it. If I spend an hour playing with my child, I forego the income I might otherwise have earned. That money is the cost of my time with my child. I happen to think it is money well "spent."
In the same way, a musician loses the money that he would otherwise have obtained if you make a copy of his music and give it to someone else. He has a right to set the conditions under which he will give you a copy of his music. By circumventing them, you are robbing him of that right. No matter how you slice it, it is an undeniable fact that at zero price there are going to be VERY FEW musicians, and EVEN LESS music of high quality. It's simple supply and demand.
By YOUR argument, you pretty clearly believe that copyrights are total, absolute and permanent. Thus in your little fantasy world, if copyright holder Foo sells a CD they are not only within their rights, but acting morally by:
*Prohibiting people from reselling copies of the CD
Your reductio doesn't work because you misrepresent what I think about copyright. Understand what I am saying: the owner of a thing has the right to declare the terms under which he will part with it. Do you disagree with that?
It so happens that our copyright laws are not a perfect embodiment of that principle. For instance, our copyright laws declare that ownership of copyrighted materials ends after 'x' years. Now, there may be good arguments in favor of this arrangements, but it is a violation of the producer's property rights. It just so happens that very few (if any) producers find these restrictions to be egregious -- and so they keep producing. Completely deny them the right to profit as they see fit, and you can kiss production goodbye. It won't survive, except as folk art.
Further, if producers set such egregious restrictions upon use of their goods, they would have *very* few buyers. They would be within their rights, but no one would be buying from them. They would be buying from other, more enlightened producers who charge less for the same sort of product (yes, Virginia, restrictions on use are a part of the price of a good).
Now having demonstrated that your argument goes _way_ too far and crashes and burns,
You've done nothing of the sort. You've interpolated what you *think* is my position.
Now, were there any creative works produced before the creation of copyright laws? Why, YES, there WERE.
And I suppose there was enough music being created to support a whole billion-dollar recording industry (had such things existed), right? Why, NO, there WASN'T. Don't be a silly fool. If Gribnak the Younger isn't being paid to create music in the 14th century, Gribnak the Younger isn't going to be creating it. He's going to be scrabbling in the fields with his family, hoping to find or grow enough potatoes to feed himself and his children. Oh sure, they might invent a song to while away their time while they work -- but very little of it will have ANY quality at all.
While you might not believe it there are no small number of people in this world who create potentially valuable pieces of art and give them away because they want to. To them the only value is the beauty of the piece. It has no monetary value to such a person.
To the contrary, O Silly One. The number of people willing to give away their produce is really minuscule relative to the whole population of the earth. And the foolishness of such people means that they must spend MORE time doing OTHER work, which means that they have LESS time for doing what they WANT. The result: LESS ART. Duh.
Simple economics, O Silly One. It's inescapable. Art is a scarce resource. People willing to produce it for nothing are even scarcer.
We'll continue this if and only if you begin your next post with a refutation of the law of supply and demand.
You don't seem to understand what is actually being purchased by your tuition. It's not the education; you can get that without all the academic nonsense. No, you're paying for guild certification. The guild of University professors certifies that you have demonstrated a certain level of expertise in a given discipline(s). Because this is what you are buying from them, they have the right to set the price as they see fit. It just so happens that the price (USUALLY) includes doing the work involved with getting an education -- but as I said, you could do all that yourself, if you try hard.
But your payment for that guild certification takes other forms as well: writing papers that unscrupulous professors will mine for material they can use themselves, for instance. These are all costs of getting that guild certification -- err, degree.
If you can't vision a world with out money, where people do things that are good and share them with everyone. Then you must live one shallow life.
Don't be silly. Of course people do this, even now. It's called "charity" or "gift-giving." These are nonsensical bases for an economy, and simply would not work.