A religion is basically just an idea. Some are more complex than others but all of them must have one thing in common to survive: They have to be transmited from one generation to the next, from person to person.
The religions that do this most sucessfully will ensure that they are more likely to survive.
So what matters isn't who is 'moral' or 'immoral' because there is no 'moral' or 'immoral' behaviour from an objective point of view. All morality is subjective like what flavor of ice cream you prefer.
The interesting point is which version of the 'religion-idea' is more likely to survive: his, yours, or someone elses?
By the way, you are both obviously trying to convert the other to your camp and thus gain another adherent to your own version of the 'religion-idea'. It seems from your post that you don't quite understand that. You seem to think that for some reason your version of the 'religion-idea' is the 'right' one when it is pointless to debate religion on who is 'right' and who is 'wrong' since there is no objectively 'right' or 'wrong' 'religion-idea's just different/competing ones.
Anyway all of the above is just my opinion. Take it for what it is worth.
I do believe that anything created is based on what has come before it. That creativity is basically re-ordering of what has come before. I dare you or anyone else to come up with a single instance of a creative work that does not use some form of 'prior art'.
I was not implying that creativity itself will die just that 'legal creativity' is being hurt which removes the economic insintive to create. Creating something costs time and effort, to the degree that I am unable to recoup some of my costs becouse I can not publish/sell my work it is a disinsitive for me to create.
The U.S. patent system was founded in the Constitution, and has existed since shortly thereafter. Indeed, previously the colonies each granted their own monopolies; and continuing back, England, Venice, and even ancient Rome and Greece had their own monopoly systems. Innovation has hardly slowed.
Actually neither you nor I know what marvelous inventions/works of art have NOT been created becouse of existing laws. That is why they are so dangerous. It is impossible to say exactly how much damage they do. Maybe we would be living in 'the world of tomorrow' with ultra-cheap electicity, cures for every known disease, and terahertz desktop computers. It is a GAMBLE that the laws help more than they hurt but as they broaden it becomes more of a certainty that they do more harm than good.
You're mistakenly equating patents with copyrights. Music, movies, etc. are not patentable. Copyright law has massive problems right now, but it's a separate issue.
I agree that in my fevor to make a basic point that I was making a more general argument against 'intelectual property' laws in general and strayed a bit off-topic. My appologies.
Patent infringement claims are strictly a civil matter. You can't go to jail for it, because there are no such laws. Again, you're thinking copyright.
Civil judgements can take my real property (house/money/cars) away from me. Just becouse I don't go to jail doesn't mean that I don't lose things that aren't important to me and so won't effect my behaviour. Imagine how much it would suck to work several years building your business just to have someone else take it away from you.
The real problem with software and other IP patents/copyrights are that they create a ridiculous self-fulfilling prophecy:
1. As innovation becomes more and more stifled (creativity IS the act of building one thing on top of another which is becoming harder and harder to do legaly) fewer and fewer new things come into the world. 2. **AA people will assert that this is do to piracy. 3. This leads to even more draconian laws. 4. Cycle repeats until innovation is entirely crushed.
Of course I'm being a bit facetious in saying that inovation will be entirely crushed. People will just ignore the laws en masse such as they do with current drug laws and to a large extent current copyright laws. However then we get into a system where everyone is more or less a criminal under the law. This is bad becouse it gives the state the power to arbitrarily persecute those individuals and groups that it dislikes and turn a blind eye to those it finds favor with.
There is only one downside: once the power in a free market shifts to the "producers" away from the "consumers," the market ceases to be free.
I never said that the above economic system was perfect just that it was better than anything I've seen so far including what the poster presented. I agree that perhaps its main flaw/weakness is that it is at the mercy of the political system that it is embeded in which can be manipulated to give one side or the other an unbalanced advantage.
I believe that our form of republicism is flawed in that it allows Political Interest Groups (PIGs seems a more appropriate acronym than others I've seen to describe this structure) to have more power than is good for society and causes the problems that you mentioned.
Personally I think if we are going to revamp the system that we should look away from republicism and more towards a true democracy as this should remove 'special interest' politics if there are no representatives to be manipulated. I believe if such a system were to come about that the economic structure would cease to be so heavily distorted (the market woudl be 'free-er'). But again that is just my own opinion.
For some people life will never conform to their sense of what is 'fair'.
Usually this is due to being taught as a child that the world works one way only to find later in life that it works another.
You have a choice at some point which way you want to go:
1. try to 'make' the world conform to your instilled sense of justice (good luck!). 2. study the world with open eyes and play the role that you see will give you the most joy.
Here is the way the world works as I see it (which may or may not be the way it really is):
1. Free market capitalism is the most efficient and stable form of economic distribution/production. Any other economic system that I can think of or have been exposed to does worse for both producers and consumers. 2. Complex interactive social structures which is normaly termed 'civilization' seems to do well by the individual who chooses to participate. Giving him protection from without and within as well as efficient mechanisms to work with his fellow man. 3. There might be even better systems than 1&2 but they have yet to prove themselves and since 1&2 evolved from more primitive systems it is a good bet that they are in some way 'better' for the individual who finds himself in such a system compared to the ones which were beat out.
Basically I'm not saying that the current system(s) we find ourselves in is the best possible but I think that looking to the past and somehow trying to recreate a system that obviously didn't work as well as the present system is the wrong way to go about it.
It's a great day! We found a new way to screw over the one company who actually found a way to provide what everyone said they wanted: convenient, electronic distribution of music at a fair price.
There are some apologists who have said this but I think this it is misleading to assume that they speak for all or even a majority. What I want (and I believe I am far from alone) is the freedom to use any information that I have in my possession in any way that I choose.
If someone is foolish enough to publish information with the expectation that they can somehow control/protect it later then that is unfortunate. They should know by now that ANY information protection scheme can be broken. A company as large and technically sophisticated as Apple should know this and understand its implications.
So it is ok to take away my freedom if the entity who took it away uses its power to build large monuments to itself and make itself even more powerful at my expense?
I'm not saying you're wrong. I will say however that I disagree with you. At least until that freedom is taken away as well.
Honestly not sure if I am misreading you, if so I appologize. What you appear to be saying is that people who choose to use their land in different ways utilize state resources differently. You seem to be saying that people who use their land for some productive use such as factories/farming/retail utilize more state resources and should therefore be made to pay more somehow. Interesting concept but I think I simply disagree. I would say that the benificiaries of most state services are individual persons not business entities. I'm thinking of income re-distribution schemes such as welfare and things like education. Roads/Fire protection/Police are probably just about equally used per area of land no matter how it is being utilized. I would in fact say that the measure of how much land is occupied is a much better measure of how many state resources are being used vs how much product a company sells to the public.
Sales tax penalizes economic transactions.
Property tax penalizes owning property.
If I had to guess I would say that penalizing economic transactions would be a bad thing to do if you wanted a thriving economy which encourages people to make and sell things.
Taxing property will also be a drag on the economy (as all taxes are) but has the benifit of forcing the effective and efficient use of limited resources(land). Heck its even got the benifit of being naturaly progressive (rich people tend to own more property than poor) and universal (everyone in a sense pays property tax becouse it is factored into such things as rent).
Think of what a tax is and what it is used for. A State tax is used to provide state citizens with things such as roads, schools, etc. What defines a state citizen is the actual peice of land that he/she/it lives on.
I buy product X in state Y (which is not my state). Do I recieve any of these things? No. Therefore it is kind of galling that I should want to 'volunteer' to do so.
A much better way for states to increase revenues (and in my own opinion the best tax of all) is the simple property tax. It is unavoidable, predictable, simple and cheap to collect for both the state and for the business/individual.
If a biz is taxed in this way then they will pass on the tax as a part of doing business to everyone. As I said: simple, cheap, effective.
The solution to this mess is very simple: Don't buy into the concept of 'intellectual property'.
The basic idea is flawed and in fact harmful. It is not the fault of the lawyers or judges but rather us for even allowing such a silly group of laws to be writen. They are simply following the logical path which will end up sucking the life out of our economy and all of our future artistic endevours.
The only way out of this nightmare is to repeal the laws that make criminals out of all of us to protect a few peoples 'right' to stifle our creativity and freedom of expression:
Ever writen a program that didn't copy in some way something someone else had done before? How may novel ways are there to write a search routine for a linked list?
Ever view a painting done by an artist not copying at least one technique that he or she saw or read about from somebody else?
Ever read any piece of fiction that didn't at least in some way copy something from some-one else (plot device, character habits, 'style')?
One simply can not create any significant work without copying in some way what has been done before.
Strange that everyone here seems to understand that basic principle of why freedom of information is a good thing, but seems unwilling to attack those laws and concepts that are attacking it and us.
Slashdot Mirror
A religion is basically just an idea. Some are more complex than others but all of them must have one thing in common to survive: They have to be transmited from one generation to the next, from person to person.
The religions that do this most sucessfully will ensure that they are more likely to survive.
So what matters isn't who is 'moral' or 'immoral' because there is no 'moral' or 'immoral' behaviour from an objective point of view. All morality is subjective like what flavor of ice cream you prefer.
The interesting point is which version of the 'religion-idea' is more likely to survive: his, yours, or someone elses?
By the way, you are both obviously trying to convert the other to your camp and thus gain another adherent to your own version of the 'religion-idea'. It seems from your post that you don't quite understand that. You seem to think that for some reason your version of the 'religion-idea' is the 'right' one when it is pointless to debate religion on who is 'right' and who is 'wrong' since there is no objectively 'right' or 'wrong' 'religion-idea's just different/competing ones.
Anyway all of the above is just my opinion. Take it for what it is worth.
Please let me clarify:
I do believe that anything created is based on what has come before it. That creativity is basically re-ordering of what has come before. I dare you or anyone else to come up with a single instance of a creative work that does not use some form of 'prior art'.
I was not implying that creativity itself will die just that 'legal creativity' is being hurt which removes the economic insintive to create. Creating something costs time and effort, to the degree that I am unable to recoup some of my costs becouse I can not publish/sell my work it is a disinsitive for me to create.
The U.S. patent system was founded in the Constitution, and has existed since shortly thereafter. Indeed, previously the colonies each granted their own monopolies; and continuing back, England, Venice, and even ancient Rome and Greece had their own monopoly systems. Innovation has hardly slowed.
Actually neither you nor I know what marvelous inventions/works of art have NOT been created becouse of existing laws. That is why they are so dangerous. It is impossible to say exactly how much damage they do. Maybe we would be living in 'the world of tomorrow' with ultra-cheap electicity, cures for every known disease, and terahertz desktop computers. It is a GAMBLE that the laws help more than they hurt but as they broaden it becomes more of a certainty that they do more harm than good.
You're mistakenly equating patents with copyrights. Music, movies, etc. are not patentable. Copyright law has massive problems right now, but it's a separate issue.
I agree that in my fevor to make a basic point that I was making a more general argument against 'intelectual property' laws in general and strayed a bit off-topic. My appologies.
Patent infringement claims are strictly a civil matter. You can't go to jail for it, because there are no such laws. Again, you're thinking copyright.
Civil judgements can take my real property (house/money/cars) away from me. Just becouse I don't go to jail doesn't mean that I don't lose things that aren't important to me and so won't effect my behaviour. Imagine how much it would suck to work several years building your business just to have someone else take it away from you.
The real problem with software and other IP patents/copyrights are that they create a ridiculous self-fulfilling prophecy:
1. As innovation becomes more and more stifled (creativity IS the act of building one thing on top of another which is becoming harder and harder to do legaly) fewer and fewer new things come into the world.
2. **AA people will assert that this is do to piracy.
3. This leads to even more draconian laws.
4. Cycle repeats until innovation is entirely crushed.
Of course I'm being a bit facetious in saying that inovation will be entirely crushed. People will just ignore the laws en masse such as they do with current drug laws and to a large extent current copyright laws. However then we get into a system where everyone is more or less a criminal under the law. This is bad becouse it gives the state the power to arbitrarily persecute those individuals and groups that it dislikes and turn a blind eye to those it finds favor with.
There is only one downside: once the power in a free market shifts to the "producers" away from the "consumers," the market ceases to be free.
I never said that the above economic system was perfect just that it was better than anything I've seen so far including what the poster presented. I agree that perhaps its main flaw/weakness is that it is at the mercy of the political system that it is embeded in which can be manipulated to give one side or the other an unbalanced advantage.
I believe that our form of republicism is flawed in that it allows Political Interest Groups (PIGs seems a more appropriate acronym than others I've seen to describe this structure) to have more power than is good for society and causes the problems that you mentioned.
Personally I think if we are going to revamp the system that we should look away from republicism and more towards a true democracy as this should remove 'special interest' politics if there are no representatives to be manipulated. I believe if such a system were to come about that the economic structure would cease to be so heavily distorted (the market woudl be 'free-er'). But again that is just my own opinion.
For some people life will never conform to their sense of what is 'fair'.
Usually this is due to being taught as a child that the world works one way only to find later in life that it works another.
You have a choice at some point which way you want to go:
1. try to 'make' the world conform to your instilled sense of justice (good luck!).
2. study the world with open eyes and play the role that you see will give you the most joy.
Here is the way the world works as I see it (which may or may not be the way it really is):
1. Free market capitalism is the most efficient and stable form of economic distribution/production. Any other economic system that I can think of or have been exposed to does worse for both producers and consumers.
2. Complex interactive social structures which is normaly termed 'civilization' seems to do well by the individual who chooses to participate. Giving him protection from without and within as well as efficient mechanisms to work with his fellow man.
3. There might be even better systems than 1&2 but they have yet to prove themselves and since 1&2 evolved from more primitive systems it is a good bet that they are in some way 'better' for the individual who finds himself in such a system compared to the ones which were beat out.
Basically I'm not saying that the current system(s) we find ourselves in is the best possible but I think that looking to the past and somehow trying to recreate a system that obviously didn't work as well as the present system is the wrong way to go about it.
Just my opinion.
It's a great day! We found a new way to screw over the one company who actually found a way to provide what everyone said they wanted: convenient, electronic distribution of music at a fair price.
There are some apologists who have said this but I think this it is misleading to assume that they speak for all or even a majority. What I want (and I believe I am far from alone) is the freedom to use any information that I have in my possession in any way that I choose.
If someone is foolish enough to publish information with the expectation that they can somehow control/protect it later then that is unfortunate. They should know by now that ANY information protection scheme can be broken. A company as large and technically sophisticated as Apple should know this and understand its implications.
So it is ok to take away my freedom if the entity who took it away uses its power to build large monuments to itself and make itself even more powerful at my expense?
I'm not saying you're wrong. I will say however that I disagree with you. At least until that freedom is taken away as well.
Honestly not sure if I am misreading you, if so I appologize. What you appear to be saying is that people who choose to use their land in different ways utilize state resources differently. You seem to be saying that people who use their land for some productive use such as factories/farming/retail utilize more state resources and should therefore be made to pay more somehow. Interesting concept but I think I simply disagree. I would say that the benificiaries of most state services are individual persons not business entities. I'm thinking of income re-distribution schemes such as welfare and things like education. Roads/Fire protection/Police are probably just about equally used per area of land no matter how it is being utilized. I would in fact say that the measure of how much land is occupied is a much better measure of how many state resources are being used vs how much product a company sells to the public.
Sales tax penalizes economic transactions.
Property tax penalizes owning property.
If I had to guess I would say that penalizing economic transactions would be a bad thing to do if you wanted a thriving economy which encourages people to make and sell things.
Taxing property will also be a drag on the economy (as all taxes are) but has the benifit of forcing the effective and efficient use of limited resources(land). Heck its even got the benifit of being naturaly progressive (rich people tend to own more property than poor) and universal (everyone in a sense pays property tax becouse it is factored into such things as rent).
No it is not inevitable.
Think of what a tax is and what it is used for. A State tax is used to provide state citizens with things such as roads, schools, etc. What defines a state citizen is the actual peice of land that he/she/it lives on.
I buy product X in state Y (which is not my state). Do I recieve any of these things? No. Therefore it is kind of galling that I should want to 'volunteer' to do so.
A much better way for states to increase revenues (and in my own opinion the best tax of all) is the simple property tax. It is unavoidable, predictable, simple and cheap to collect for both the state and for the business/individual.
If a biz is taxed in this way then they will pass on the tax as a part of doing business to everyone. As I said: simple, cheap, effective.
The solution to this mess is very simple: Don't buy into the concept of 'intellectual property'.
The basic idea is flawed and in fact harmful. It is not the fault of the lawyers or judges but rather us for even allowing such a silly group of laws to be writen. They are simply following the logical path which will end up sucking the life out of our economy and all of our future artistic endevours.
The only way out of this nightmare is to repeal the laws that make criminals out of all of us to protect a few peoples 'right' to stifle our creativity and freedom of expression:
Ever writen a program that didn't copy in some way something someone else had done before? How may novel ways are there to write a search routine for a linked list?
Ever view a painting done by an artist not copying at least one technique that he or she saw or read about from somebody else?
Ever read any piece of fiction that didn't at least in some way copy something from some-one else (plot device, character habits, 'style')?
One simply can not create any significant work without copying in some way what has been done before.
Strange that everyone here seems to understand that basic principle of why freedom of information is a good thing, but seems unwilling to attack those laws and concepts that are attacking it and us.