The guv is in the business of providing services and filling the gap where the private sector doesn't or can't provide this service, or where we don't (didn't?) want competition.
Most tax is from a common pool, and distributed as such. Personally I'm more in favour of targeted tax: if you tell me that my income tax is to support a war effort, then when the war is over the tax should end, right? This would make it more difficult for politicians to bury their multi-million dollar pet projects in the multi-billion dollar budget.
So if you look at it this way, the guv already collects tax on behalf of private enterprises like farmers: it just comes out of the common pot instead of being from a targetted source.
Now, despite what the minimalists argue, art is a human necessity - at the very least art is something that we, as a society, really really really want. And there is more than one way to finance art: we've tried handing out copyright monopolies, but that got corrupt pretty quick as the companies focus on making money (not art), so the government can and should look at alternate methods of actually compensating artists (not middlemen, promoters, leeches) and potentially one way to do this is to place a levy on items used by people who consume art and distribute the proceeds to artists.
Well, it's a nice theory anyways... like anything else it can be corrupt as well, and there are some tough decision as to who gets the proceeds etc.
Personally I think that copyright reform (or abolishment really, but I'm dreaming) is necessary, and we need to look at ways of guaranteeing *artist* (not _corporate_) income. Mandatory payouts (minimum wage?) for artists, Contract dissolution terms and a host of other things need to be addressed...
I know TFA is about PCC (not CRIA), but I suspect they are just a different hand of the same beast which is distinctly non-Canadian (though not just American).
Well there's at least a couple of people who care: one with a pen, and one with a house-vote.
So far it seems the pen is at least holding back the tides if not outright winning.
Now that Michael has a spot in the Toronto Star I suspect that more people are becoming educated on the subject. He's also getting interviews on various TV shows...
It creates hardware/vendor lock-in that doesn't exist otherwise. (we can debate exactly how effective this has been, but it exists nonetheless.)
...but without it the Big Four would have walked away
Maybe initially.
But now that Jobs controls the largest music store and sells the most popular player, I'd say he *could* have re-negotiated. After all it's my understanding that he fought tierd-pricing... he could have fought DRM as well.
imho? it's not in his interest. He likes the vertical tie-in regardless of how little we perceive the impact to be. And he doesn't see anyone *not* buying an iPod b/c of it (that's me, but he doesn't and can't possibly know that)
The next round of media won't be so easy to back up
Defeating DRM is trivial. Both bluray and hd have been bypassed, as has the drm 'protecting' vista. all within the last month or so. Future versions of drm will be cracked just as easily. You can write software that says it defies physics, but in the end...
Just wait for a time when your house can be randomly checked for copied media
Welcome to the soviet states of america?
I guess it could happen. But that might just be enough to get some people up in arms (literally).
In 10 years, when all support for non-DRM encumbered crap is gone, no one will be deciding because you'll be choosing between useless infested OS's. I don't share your optimism
well, I'm not american, and for now my country hasn't got *all* the screwed up laws you have, and there are countries where they are even less screwed up to the point of making sense. The thing to remember is that Linux isn't even American - not that it's Finish anymore really, and that's the point: development will continue world-wide (including america) though releases may get restricted to countries like norway, sweden, india, china etc.
American influence is already diminishing world-wide; G-dub seems to be making a concerted effort to spend all the cash _and_ the goodwill in a single sitting.
...and despite all this, I think that americans *are* resiliant: and I have hope even for things to change/reverse-course there. Get involved / keep a positive outlook!
Can I download DRM-free movies/music from bittorrent with Vista? Yes.until MS revokes the rights of your BT client from running on the basis that the downloads aren't licensed (i said nothing about legal). Can I rip and burn DVDs with Vista? Yes. until MS revokes the rights of your CD Ripper from running on the basis that circumventing the dvd encrytion is a dmca violation. the dmca-police are on their way...stay where you are. Can I buy a computer without Vista and install Linux on my own? Yes.but not from a major vendor... well ok, so IBM and Dell claim it, but every story I've read on this seems to say you can't actually _order_ one...so you're into a white-box, which is fine with me, but most people like some kind of support and what-not. Does Vista prevent me from visiting Internet sites devoted to unpopular, taboo or anti-corporate sub-culture? No.until MS decides that the site is 'wrong' for some reason and blocks you. Sure the first ones blocked won't be those that you've listed (my guess? kiddie porn will get the nod - it has in Canada) after that it's just a matter of misfiling some sites. We've already seen the damage done when you're delisted by google... Ok, so that one's not there yet, it'll probably be Vista-II before that's included - But I have faith....just think of the children! Does Vista curtail by ability to create art or publish my viewpoint for the entire world to see? No. again... like the previous one. Of course, I expect non-DRMd meda will soon have a special seat at the MS table...
Well just wait till they no longer sell DRM free content.
Since when do "they" sell anything that isn't already DRM'd? The last new thing released without encryption was CDs where the physical media was the "DRM" (it was sold as "uncopyable" to the media owners).
Over time the screws will be tightened and non-DRM stuff including players and encoders will either be illegal or the content will all be DRM made so you can't engage in your illegal activities.
It's pretty much true today. the dmca dissallows circumvention, and dvd/bluray/hd and itunes are encoded/encrypted.... so long as we're talking about the Big Media.
What gives me hope is that (a) you can't 'force' independents to use drm and (b) the tighter they squeeze, the more artists are going to slip through their fingers.
It may remain illegal to do much with the mainstream media (even watch it...!) but there is a growing group of artists that are working the 'net and collaborating much like 15ish yrs ago some coders got together and starting updating a spunky new OS kernel... imagine what 15yrs can bring to artists.
Vista is all about putting the controls in
Yup. Vista is either going to be the first step in MS controlling *your* computer, or the last step in Windows on your computer.
I'd end this with a "you decide"... but sadly, 89% of the population isn't going to actively make a decision... they'll just use what came with the box.
So all you people saying that producers whose products are "copied for free" should just stop making them are willing to lose the entirety of the music, movie, and software industries?
For your assertion to be true, music and movies couldn't have been created pre-copyright. Since I'm pretty confident that people have been making all kinds of art without copyright, I'm not too worried. I'm gonna suspect "no software before copyright" is for a different reason...:)
Without the for profit software industry very few people would pursue careers in software and universities would be forced to cut their CS and likely their CE programs down to the core.
Just as for-profit music is not dependant on copyright, neither is a for-profit software. Proof? Redhat "sells" a product which can be (for all intents and purposes) freely copied and disributed. And it manages to have revenues in the $400 million range... and has some near $1billion in cash... not a tiny company.
Without for profit companies like Google funding the FOSS movement it would be nothing.
I'll grant that big companies like IBM and Oracle putting cash directly into FLOSS development isn't hurting, but to suggest that w/o them it would be nothing is to ignore 10yrs of steady growth *before* these guys got involved. They didn't get involved b/c they are selfless - it's profitable for them to be involved. period.
It's not a good idea to destroy several industries simply because a majority of people are completely unscrupulous when they think no one is watching.
No industry is being destroyed. Music and the other arts will continue to exist long after the current monopolists are dethroned. It's history. It's inevitable. It's normal.
Will art be the same as today, or the same as it was in the 50s or 80s? nope. But was art in the same state in the 80's as it was when mozart wrote some of the most brilliant music ever written, or shakespear wrote a couple of still well received plays? Nope. So what?
It sounds like you think you have some kind of entitlement to a world where computing works exactly the way you would like it to.
Yup. Well, my computer anyways. It's my damn computer afterall - why should I have to bow to another's wishes? That's the beauty of open standards and joy of open source. If I don't like how Application-X does something I can alter it.
Now obviously since I can't dictate to others how their computer should work we do need to agree to some interoperability standards - but I should still be able to decide how my computer will interact with that standard.
MS is all about the closed standards... and extending the open standards with non-standard extensions, effectively making it a closed standard again.
I get the impression you would prefer that software developers should be compelled by some higher power to make computing the way you wish it were.
Can't speak for the OP, but I don't expect anyone to build what *I* want, but I'd like to at least be able to pick and choose...
Like you resent Bill Gates for going out and selling an operating system that doesn't perform according to your ideals.
No, but I do resent a company using anti-competative business practices to create a monopoly and exert that power to extort money from people - including public money. It's things like the closed MS Exchange and MS Office formats that continue to ensure the monopoly racket they are running. In a truly competative environment there would be multiple products to chose from, and Calling-All-Capitalists! competition has brought us many wonderful advances not seen anywhere else.
case study: MS did little to nothing for Internet Explorer since about Win2k. Out comes Firefox with loads of new features and really enhances the 'net experience. Poof! couple years later we have the MS Firefox-clone (aka v.7) -- can anyone honestly tell me that all those features were in the works before FF?
Whether you like or dislike Linux it is impacting *all* users in a positive way by forcing MS to improve it's product...and for this reason, even if for no other, even the strongest MS apologist should want to see Linux succeed.
Anyone who has endured trying to get internet connection sharing working under Linux vs. the 30 seconds it takes to set it up on Windows will immediately understand why Windows is worth $150 and Linux isn't worth the free price tag.
$ yum -y install firestarter ; firestarter
...wait 15seconds for the download... and up pops the firestarter gui.
clickey, clickey, clickey... 'net connection shared... time elapsed: 30-seconds; money spent: Still Zero Dollars.
I'm not trying to be flippant here... it's just the first time you need to do something you've never done before you might need to google it.
Having set up sharing for both windows and linux I'd say the *first* time I did it for either system took me about the same amount of time. However, (going by memory!) it was way more than 30-seconds for the WinWizard just to create the bridge *after* I'd spent the time figuring out which clickey's I needed, and Linux really is just a few clicks and it's done.
Is this honestly the best troll you could come up with ? What is wrong with you people - don't you even try anymore ?
well, you see the problem is that previous trolls didn't copyright or patent their trolls, so people can just outright steal the old ones.... reuse them without paying, see? So they don't have to put any effort into coming up with new and better trolls.
What/. obviously needs is some kind of copyright and/or patent system(s) such that we will promote the creation of new and better trolls.
(me:) As I usually do in any patent debate I refer you to this
ok... my turn to sigh.
You didn't actually bother to read the homework before you claimed 'facts'? I can live with someone who hasn't read any counter-claims to their world-view to title me 'ignorant', but when presented with some reading at least *READ* it before continuing to claim 'facts' that aren't actually 'facts' but theories being pushed by those that profit from the propogation of those theories...
Though some may quibble about just how much profits are necessary to sustain investment, no one with a solid understanding of business or economics would fail to recognize that profits are essential to motivate investment and that high risk investments demand higher returns
I don't disagree that profit is necessary, and don't disagree that higher risk means higher reward needs to be achievable.
Even if you think Toyota should be the model of the maximum profit margin allowed to a company
I don't think it's for anyone to decide what the profit margin should be. If there is sufficient reward (monetary or otherwise) then private enterprise will get involved. If not, then...well, it probably won't get served by the private market. If it's still important to society then the guv may step in and have a look. Like roads for example. There's no 'profit' in public roads, but we still have them (and need them...)
the drug business still depend on patents to cover their costs
The drug business has been offered patents and would be stupid not to take advantage of them (since they enrich the owners). There is no proof that patents actually work, and there seems to be a growing body of research that indicates the opposite: patents slow down advances and/or are unnecessary.
Beyond the ethical concerns of arbitrarily denying people drugs, the reality is that human advancement is in baby steps, and drugs have a long testing period. This testing period gives the 'originator' of a new drug an artificial monopoly during which time the generic has to design, test and have their own drug approved. This gives the 'original' first-mover advantage, which gives them profit enough for the micro-change/improvement they have made, but doesn't force everyone else to wait 20+/- yrs to improve the drug. It eliminates the patent system which decreases their operating costs, eliminates patent enforcement costs and makes generics available in less time making drugs more affordable.
As I usually do in any patent debate I refer you to this.
On the contrary, it conclusively proves the value of drugs and the fairness of the profit margins.
Now you are being deliberately obtuse...and an AC to boot.
You're suggesting that people *decide* that their health isn't worth spending whatever the price is (within limits of what they have).
This isn't deciding that they can't afford a car or a new TV. This is their freakin' health. Without the health there is no TV or car...
While any seller can set their price at any level they are constrained by what the buyer will pay. If Ford wanted $200,000 for a car they'd sell a hell of a lot less of them: people could and would do without.
Now in this case, there is only one company that is legally allowed to make some treatment, and they want $200,000 for a treatment that costs them $16 or you die or are in pain or whatever... Beyond the ethics questions how can you say that this situation proves the fairness of the profit margins?? The value question is obvious: your life is worth whatever you can afford to pay. duh.
...and this shows the industry enjoys about a 65% Gross Margin.
Contrast that with an industry that doesn't enjoy protection on it's product, say Toyota (also picked randomly but assumed to be more or less industry leader at this time)
Revenue (ttm): 189.92B
Gross Profit (ttm): 34.83B
Profit Margin (ttm): 7.00% ...and this industry has to make do with only about 19% Gross Margin.
So to agree with what you're saying: Pfizer made some 42billion dollars in profits because they have protection on their product; and that profit comes directly from the consumer, and comes directly at the expense of sick people that can't afford the drugs they produce.
'Research' is an expense which decreases profit. Such large profits are simply monopoly protection income that has not been spent as promised: on research.
This clearly shows us that we need to at a minimum reduce the patent term, and more realisticly review the very concept of drug patents.
Anyone who argues that the current patent system is necessary or healthy in the face of these abnormal profits is sick and twisted or stupid or corrupt or maybe all of the above...
And this is what (imho) we westerners seem not to get: when (not if) the switch to OSS happens it won't be here in the west: China and India make up some (half?) of the world's population, and once they come on board... MS et.all are toast. And with them out, our IT staff becomes second-rate as they become irrelevant.
The thing is, the MPAA and etc don't care if there are false positives
I suspect quite the opposite: They want *any* content that they don't get paid for taken down. They don't care if it's their content (and they're not getting paid) or someone else's content (and they're not getting paid). So the maximum false-positive rate is exactly what they want...
They only exist as long as they are the content owners: the second that content stops getting signed over to them they get relegated to nothingness.
well... perhaps because there is no coorelation between jail-time and not breaking the law...errm, other than (I guess) not ever letting someone back out.
The simple fact is that if locking people into a cage for a specified term were actually a deterrent then the US would have the lowest crime of any country anywhere (it is my understanding that the US has more %age of pop'n locked up than anyone else). Since crime in the US continues to be a terrible problem, perhaps it's time we began to look at alternates, like real rehabilitaion, meeting the victims, performing real restitution etc.
Now before everyone freaks out, yes, there are still some that will need to be locked-up, but I'd suggest that in a healthy society that they are the exception. Let's face it: we're social creatures, and anyone of us that is anti-social is 'abnormal' and needs help and needs to be brought back into society to allow them to contribute.
Locking criminals all together is just a way to ensure that they learn from one-another and socialise with other criminals making them even more anti-social relative to the rest of us...
I don't know about you, but my High School Chemistry class had an entire segment on what household chemicals could be used to create very nasty poisons and explosives.
With an UID of 34294 you must have been one of the last that still did real science... if you still remember any of it, now might be a good time to stock up and some of the goodies that are slowly becoming either illegal or tightly controlled.
the easiest way to correlate how much violent crime an area has is not by how many citizens own firearms, but by how many citizens collect welfare payments Could it be that giving money to people who haven't earned it is not the wisest course of action?
From what I've read it's difference in income that can be corelated to crime (not 'poor people', or 'welfare recipiants' as you insinuate). In other words people seem to commit crimes due to envy and greed: if everyone was relatively equally wealthy crime would be lower. The socialist countries of the world seem to bear this out. ... therefore the opposite of what you suggest should decrease crime: more socialism.
The real question then becomes: if you're going to try an equalise incomes how you still incent people to work harder... what is the right balance between equalising incomes to decrease crime, but still make it worth people's while to work their capital...
From what I can tell, AOL matched one or more IPs directly to the defendant - name, street address, state and ZIP. If they didn't have an account with AOL how did they know that information?
Looks like the RIAA has probable cause to continue litigation because AOL did in fact correlate an IP that downloaded the music to the defendant.
Well, that's actually the first problem: how did one private corporation get your personal information from another private corporation? well, they took a 'screen shot' with your IP address, and the brain-dead legal system that is America decided that a bitmap was sufficient evidence to force one company to turn over confidential information to another company. Photoshop anyone?
That the requesting company might have financial motive to fabricate the evidence isn't possible, right?
If this was one company suing another with this same evidence it would get tossed out pretty quick. But it didn't the first time and now it's SOP.
It doesn't prove anything but the RIAA still should have the right to continue with the lititgation, as much as it pains me to say it.
And that's the next problem: An IP address is (at most) an end-point on the internet, which could represent a N number of computers, each of which could be used by another X different people. There is no way that the RIAA could be capable of reasonably proving that any one indidual was responsible for any alleged up/down-loading. And you can't (yet) sue an IP address, just people.
Maybe I'm just not seeing the problem here. Maybe I need someone to clear it up or just put on the 'Evil RIAA' blinders that I guess I'm supposed to wear when reading slashdot.
No blinders, just look at the whole picture. The submitter-guy NewYorkCountryLawyer writes frequently about the total abuse of the system.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh wait, you said "upgrade".
Most tax is from a common pool, and distributed as such. Personally I'm more in favour of targeted tax: if you tell me that my income tax is to support a war effort, then when the war is over the tax should end, right? This would make it more difficult for politicians to bury their multi-million dollar pet projects in the multi-billion dollar budget.
So if you look at it this way, the guv already collects tax on behalf of private enterprises like farmers: it just comes out of the common pot instead of being from a targetted source.
Now, despite what the minimalists argue, art is a human necessity - at the very least art is something that we, as a society, really really really want. And there is more than one way to finance art: we've tried handing out copyright monopolies, but that got corrupt pretty quick as the companies focus on making money (not art), so the government can and should look at alternate methods of actually compensating artists (not middlemen, promoters, leeches) and potentially one way to do this is to place a levy on items used by people who consume art and distribute the proceeds to artists.
Well, it's a nice theory anyways... like anything else it can be corrupt as well, and there are some tough decision as to who gets the proceeds etc.
Personally I think that copyright reform (or abolishment really, but I'm dreaming) is necessary, and we need to look at ways of guaranteeing *artist* (not _corporate_) income. Mandatory payouts (minimum wage?) for artists, Contract dissolution terms and a host of other things need to be addressed...
"horrific" and "abhorrent" are not the only choices here: we can also tell the cartel to piss off.
I know TFA is about PCC (not CRIA), but I suspect they are just a different hand of the same beast which is distinctly non-Canadian (though not just American).
So far it seems the pen is at least holding back the tides if not outright winning.
Now that Michael has a spot in the Toronto Star I suspect that more people are becoming educated on the subject. He's also getting interviews on various TV shows...
But now that Jobs controls the largest music store and sells the most popular player, I'd say he *could* have re-negotiated. After all it's my understanding that he fought tierd-pricing
imho? it's not in his interest. He likes the vertical tie-in regardless of how little we perceive the impact to be. And he doesn't see anyone *not* buying an iPod b/c of it (that's me, but he doesn't and can't possibly know that)
I guess it could happen. But that might just be enough to get some people up in arms (literally).
well, I'm not american, and for now my country hasn't got *all* the screwed up laws you have, and there are countries where they are even less screwed up to the point of making sense.The thing to remember is that Linux isn't even American - not that it's Finish anymore really, and that's the point: development will continue world-wide (including america) though releases may get restricted to countries like norway, sweden, india, china etc.
American influence is already diminishing world-wide; G-dub seems to be making a concerted effort to spend all the cash _and_ the goodwill in a single sitting.
...and despite all this, I think that americans *are* resiliant: and I have hope even for things to change/reverse-course there. Get involved / keep a positive outlook!
Can I download DRM-free movies/music from bittorrent with Vista? Yes. until MS revokes the rights of your BT client from running on the basis that the downloads aren't licensed (i said nothing about legal). ... like the previous one. Of course, I expect non-DRMd meda will soon have a special seat at the MS table...
Can I rip and burn DVDs with Vista? Yes. until MS revokes the rights of your CD Ripper from running on the basis that circumventing the dvd encrytion is a dmca violation. the dmca-police are on their way...stay where you are.
Can I buy a computer without Vista and install Linux on my own? Yes. but not from a major vendor... well ok, so IBM and Dell claim it, but every story I've read on this seems to say you can't actually _order_ one...so you're into a white-box, which is fine with me, but most people like some kind of support and what-not.
Does Vista prevent me from visiting Internet sites devoted to unpopular, taboo or anti-corporate sub-culture? No. until MS decides that the site is 'wrong' for some reason and blocks you. Sure the first ones blocked won't be those that you've listed (my guess? kiddie porn will get the nod - it has in Canada) after that it's just a matter of misfiling some sites. We've already seen the damage done when you're delisted by google... Ok, so that one's not there yet, it'll probably be Vista-II before that's included - But I have faith....just think of the children!
Does Vista curtail by ability to create art or publish my viewpoint for the entire world to see? No. again
What gives me hope is that (a) you can't 'force' independents to use drm and (b) the tighter they squeeze, the more artists are going to slip through their fingers.
Yup. Vista is either going to be the first step in MS controlling *your* computer, or the last step in Windows on your computer.It may remain illegal to do much with the mainstream media (even watch it...!) but there is a growing group of artists that are working the 'net and collaborating much like 15ish yrs ago some coders got together and starting updating a spunky new OS kernel... imagine what 15yrs can bring to artists.
I'd end this with a "you decide"
I'll grant that big companies like IBM and Oracle putting cash directly into FLOSS development isn't hurting, but to suggest that w/o them it would be nothing is to ignore 10yrs of steady growth *before* these guys got involved. They didn't get involved b/c they are selfless - it's profitable for them to be involved. period. No industry is being destroyed. Music and the other arts will continue to exist long after the current monopolists are dethroned. It's history. It's inevitable. It's normal.
Will art be the same as today, or the same as it was in the 50s or 80s? nope. But was art in the same state in the 80's as it was when mozart wrote some of the most brilliant music ever written, or shakespear wrote a couple of still well received plays? Nope. So what?
Art will exist because it is what makes us human.
feel free to expand/clarify your point and/or indicate what I've missed.
Now obviously since I can't dictate to others how their computer should work we do need to agree to some interoperability standards - but I should still be able to decide how my computer will interact with that standard.
MS is all about the closed standards ... and extending the open standards with non-standard extensions, effectively making it a closed standard again.
Can't speak for the OP, but I don't expect anyone to build what *I* want, but I'd like to at least be able to pick and choosecase study: MS did little to nothing for Internet Explorer since about Win2k. Out comes Firefox with loads of new features and really enhances the 'net experience. Poof! couple years later we have the MS Firefox-clone (aka v.7) -- can anyone honestly tell me that all those features were in the works before FF?
Whether you like or dislike Linux it is impacting *all* users in a positive way by forcing MS to improve it's product...and for this reason, even if for no other, even the strongest MS apologist should want to see Linux succeed.
...wait 15seconds for the download... and up pops the firestarter gui.
clickey, clickey, clickey ... 'net connection shared ... time elapsed: 30-seconds; money spent: Still Zero Dollars.
I'm not trying to be flippant here ... it's just the first time you need to do something you've never done before you might need to google it.
Having set up sharing for both windows and linux I'd say the *first* time I did it for either system took me about the same amount of time. However, (going by memory!) it was way more than 30-seconds for the WinWizard just to create the bridge *after* I'd spent the time figuring out which clickey's I needed, and Linux really is just a few clicks and it's done.
What /. obviously needs is some kind of copyright and/or patent system(s) such that we will promote the creation of new and better trolls.
You didn't actually bother to read the homework before you claimed 'facts'? I can live with someone who hasn't read any counter-claims to their world-view to title me 'ignorant', but when presented with some reading at least *READ* it before continuing to claim 'facts' that aren't actually 'facts' but theories being pushed by those that profit from the propogation of those theories...
Beyond the ethical concerns of arbitrarily denying people drugs, the reality is that human advancement is in baby steps, and drugs have a long testing period. This testing period gives the 'originator' of a new drug an artificial monopoly during which time the generic has to design, test and have their own drug approved. This gives the 'original' first-mover advantage, which gives them profit enough for the micro-change/improvement they have made, but doesn't force everyone else to wait 20+/- yrs to improve the drug. It eliminates the patent system which decreases their operating costs, eliminates patent enforcement costs and makes generics available in less time making drugs more affordable.
As I usually do in any patent debate I refer you to this.
You're suggesting that people *decide* that their health isn't worth spending whatever the price is (within limits of what they have).
This isn't deciding that they can't afford a car or a new TV. This is their freakin' health. Without the health there is no TV or car...
While any seller can set their price at any level they are constrained by what the buyer will pay. If Ford wanted $200,000 for a car they'd sell a hell of a lot less of them: people could and would do without.
Now in this case, there is only one company that is legally allowed to make some treatment, and they want $200,000 for a treatment that costs them $16 or you die or are in pain or whatever... Beyond the ethics questions how can you say that this situation proves the fairness of the profit margins?? The value question is obvious: your life is worth whatever you can afford to pay. duh.
Revenue (ttm) : 52.21B
Gross Profit (ttm): 42.77B
Profit Margin (ttm): 24.17%
Contrast that with an industry that doesn't enjoy protection on it's product, say Toyota (also picked randomly but assumed to be more or less industry leader at this time)
Revenue (ttm): 189.92B
...and this industry has to make do with only about 19% Gross Margin.
Gross Profit (ttm): 34.83B
Profit Margin (ttm): 7.00%
So to agree with what you're saying: Pfizer made some 42billion dollars in profits because they have protection on their product; and that profit comes directly from the consumer, and comes directly at the expense of sick people that can't afford the drugs they produce.
'Research' is an expense which decreases profit. Such large profits are simply monopoly protection income that has not been spent as promised: on research.
This clearly shows us that we need to at a minimum reduce the patent term, and more realisticly review the very concept of drug patents.
Anyone who argues that the current patent system is necessary or healthy in the face of these abnormal profits is sick and twisted or stupid or corrupt or maybe all of the above ...
And this is what (imho) we westerners seem not to get: when (not if) the switch to OSS happens it won't be here in the west: China and India make up some (half?) of the world's population, and once they come on board ... MS et.all are toast. And with them out, our IT staff becomes second-rate as they become irrelevant.
They only exist as long as they are the content owners: the second that content stops getting signed over to them they get relegated to nothingness.
The simple fact is that if locking people into a cage for a specified term were actually a deterrent then the US would have the lowest crime of any country anywhere (it is my understanding that the US has more %age of pop'n locked up than anyone else). Since crime in the US continues to be a terrible problem, perhaps it's time we began to look at alternates, like real rehabilitaion, meeting the victims, performing real restitution etc.
Now before everyone freaks out, yes, there are still some that will need to be locked-up, but I'd suggest that in a healthy society that they are the exception. Let's face it: we're social creatures, and anyone of us that is anti-social is 'abnormal' and needs help and needs to be brought back into society to allow them to contribute.
Locking criminals all together is just a way to ensure that they learn from one-another and socialise with other criminals making them even more anti-social relative to the rest of us...
I have it on good authority that a few kids can beat up an army on American soil. We'll be ok.
The real question then becomes: if you're going to try an equalise incomes how you still incent people to work harder... what is the right balance between equalising incomes to decrease crime, but still make it worth people's while to work their capital...
That the requesting company might have financial motive to fabricate the evidence isn't possible, right?
If this was one company suing another with this same evidence it would get tossed out pretty quick. But it didn't the first time and now it's SOP.
And that's the next problem: An IP address is (at most) an end-point on the internet, which could represent a N number of computers, each of which could be used by another X different people. There is no way that the RIAA could be capable of reasonably proving that any one indidual was responsible for any alleged up/down-loading. And you can't (yet) sue an IP address, just people. No blinders, just look at the whole picture. The submitter-guy NewYorkCountryLawyer writes frequently about the total abuse of the system.