>Let's assume that we can take car, and make a copy of it (although it will still >cost you about $2000 in raw materials). Let's also assume you could make a copy >just using the "raw bistream" (or model) without having the car physically there >to copy it. Now let's assume EVERY car company is horrified and decides to stop >producing cars from that day forward.
>I see golden business oppertunities now -- while the old car monopolies are still >crying over all the lost revenue, I start a company that creates custom designed >cars -- I could create (or buy) a nice model, then hire people to customize >these models for customers with special needs. You want a fifth wheel? You >want a different dashboard layout? 6 gearbox instead of 5? A 2nd steering wheel? >Special needs for specific handicaps?
Let's say you can design a custom car model in 6 months. How are you going to pay for your design team for those 6 months? Where a modern car company can spread out the cost of development over the sale of thousands or even millions of vehicles, you are going to have to get it all out of ONE. That's going to be a DAMN expensive car. I suspect you may end up with the ocassional rich patron but most people will just copy some existing design for $2000.
>Also, you'd be amazed what people will do for free, as long as it is fun (for them) >and challenging to do. If people could create a new car model, and then create it >(physically) you bet your ass TONS of people would do that JUST to drive their >self designed dream car -- and some of those will give those designs away... free.
Sure. And in this highly hypothetical world it might actually work, because if we really could make things appear at will, then people would not have to work nearly as hard to produce goods.
But back here in the real world, digital content producers, even though they might love what they are doing, still have bills to pay. They need to get paid. Very few people are wealthy enough that they can dabble in what pleases them all day long for free.
>For example, I designed my own filesystem some years ago -- it was very enjoyable, >and a lot of fun to get it working fast and correctly, and to add new features to > it. See http://sourceforge.net/projects/smartfilesystem [sourceforge.net] (or >look on wikipedia) -- it's a project I spend almost 2 years on, then gave away for free.
Presumably you had another source of income on which to live for those two years.
Hey, there is nothing wrong with people who WANT to make things and give them away for free. I'm not against that at all.
I'm against people who want to benefit from the fruits of the labors of people who DON'T want to give them away for free.
A man who works to produce something deserves to be able to sell the fruits of his labor at some price to people who want those fruits. It's not fair to consume the man's fruits for free if they weren't a gift to you.
>You're wrong. The end result is not what matters, the action is. Stealing is an action, >not an end result. If I copy a Ford car I have probably infringed on any number of >patents and trademarks, but I have stolen nothing.
But the end result DOES matter. If anything can be freely copied with no compensation to the original owner, then no physical thing has material value.
I don't care if you burn my house down with matches or a blowtorch - the end result is I don't have a house. I don't care if you steal a CD out of my store or simply make it worthless with infinite copies - either way I'm out my investment.
Ultimately, this argument is pointless. Things will resolve themselves one way or another. Either digtal data is going to become worthless to the point that only the idle rich can afford to produce it, or DMA is going to to lock things down sufficiently that people who make digital content can be reasonbly sure that some minimum number of the people who are consuming it are paying for it.
>By your definition if someone gave >me a gift that would be stealing, >since I did not pay for it and I still have something.
Surely you can understand that even a gift that was given to you was _paid_for_by_someone. We are not talking about gifts, and you know it.
>True, such a device would greatly change the industry and probably cause large car >manufacturing operations to lay off thousands. The economic impact would be severe. >But what does any of this have to do with whether or not it is ethical or legal?
Because thousands of people have put their lives into something with the expectation that they can get paid from it and you are reaping the benefits of that for FREE. You don't see an ethical problem here?
>Would you halt all progress to insure that every business that is making money >now will continue to do so? The traditional example is the drastic decline >carriage sales with the advent of the car industry. Plenty of laws were passed >trying to make cars hard to own and to ensure progress was halted. Back in the >day in many places if you were driving down the road (at the 5mph speed limit >designed to ensure cars were no faster than horses) and you saw a horse coming >you had to pull over and hide your car in the bushes.
Of course I'm not for protecting businesses who's products are eclipsed by a superior product. What you are talking about, though, is not destroying the value of carriages by replacing the carriage with a superior alternative, you are doing it by simply copying it.
It's one thing for a business to fail because it couldn't compete. It's another thing entirely WHEN YOU DON'T EVEN GIVE THEM A CHANCE.
>This is analogous to current copyright laws and the DMCA now. Technology has >progressed, but the industry wishes it hadn't so they try to artificially >restrain progress by paying off corrupt politicians.
Sure "technology" has progressed. But not like you would have us believe. Has some technology come along that obsoletes digital data? No. All that has come along is technology that makes copying existing digital data virtually free. It's not about trying to restrain progress, or stifle competition.
>First, the subjective part is where you said "something you should not have." >Whether or not someone should have something is wholly subjective.
Oh come on. If I stole a CD out of a store, would it be subjective as to whether or not I should have it or not? If you got something, and you didn't pay for it, you should not be in possession of it, unless it is a gift or a loan.
>If I want to sing "happy birthday" that is my natural right. US law does not >dispute this in any way. It is very clear and well established. So why can't >I sing "happy birthday" legally?
You can sing "happy birthday" legally to your heart's content. People do it every day. What you can't do is
>I bought a whole bunch of energy efficient bulbs. Most of them died within a year because they don't like dirty electricity and being cycled rapidly
Ain't that the truth! I have replaced just about all the bulbs in our house with these flourescent guys that are supposed to burn 1/4 of the electricity of a standard bulb and last 7 years.
I've probably had 6 or so that didn't last 3 months. I've got two on right now that if you hit the fan switch instead of the light switch and turn them off, then turn them right back on again when they are hot, they won't re-light.
I have started marking the bulbs with a sharpie pen to write the date on them when I install them, so that when they break, I'm taking the damn things back to Home Depot for a refund.
Cleverly, the writing on the box says I am supposed to mail them back to the manufacturer, but damn, it will probably cost as much to do that as to just buy another bulb, which is, of course, what they are hoping.
>Except there is. In the first case the store has one less CD and in the second case it doesn't.
No, there isn't.
In both cases, you have valuable property that you didn't pay for. From your perspective, there is no difference. You ended up with the ones and zeroes and virtually no cost to yourself, no differently than if you/had/ walked out of the store with the CD.
Even from the store's perspective there ultimately will be no difference, either. In both cases, the monetary value of the item is driven to zero. You might as well have stolen the actual CD from the store because the store still won't be able to sell it and get the money out of it that it paid for it.
"Please give me an example of something else under the sun that could be called stealing based on my definition?"
>Going to a friend's place and watching a DVD they bought.
This does not meet my definition, because my definition of stealing has been given as you being in possesion of something that you didn't pay for.
When you go to a friend's place and watch his DVD, you are watching the DVD, and the data on it, that is in HIS possesion, not yours.
Obviously we are not talking about gifts or borrowing, because both were paied for by someone and one was willingly given to you for free and the other you have to give back. We are talking about permanent possession.
>Oh, but there is a difference even from my perspective. First of all, I used my own > resources to make a copy.
The resources that you expend to make a copy are so insignificant compared to the resources expended to make the original that they are effectively nil.
>Second, by not physically taking your CD, you are still >my friend, and you will not feel obliged to report this to the authorities.
Then why are the record companies not your friend when you do this to them? Could it be that it isn't the physical CD that has the value being taken?
>I've got legal CD's here, and the last thing I care about is the 'monetary value' >of those CD's. In fact, if I told friends of mine they cannot copy my CD's because >by doing so it would reduce the value of the things I paid for, they'd laugh.. >and rightly so. Not to mention they'd likely will start avoiding me for being a >complete nutcase.
You don't care about the monetary value of your CDs because _you_don't_need_that_value_to_feed_your_family. Unlike an artist, and all of the thousands of people employed bringing an artist's music to market.
>Sorry, I see no reason why an artist that creates a hit-single has the RIGHT to demand >payment for that single act millions of times.
Well just what, then, would you suggest? Selling only the original copy? How much do you think he would have to sell that original copy for in order to feed his family for, say, six months? $30,000? $20,000? Are you going to step up and pay that? Is anyone, when they know they can just wait and get a copy for free?
>In fact, that artist would probably never need to create a hit-single again, and could >just retire and never do anything artistic ever again -- a great loss for us all.
And yet while some artists do indeed do this, many do not. Why?
How many artists do you think would be inspired to write another song after making a million bucks on the first one? How many artists do you think would be inspired to write another song after making nothing on the first one?
>If instead they were only rewarded once (like a painter for a great piece of work) >then there'd be incentive to produce more art. Just because music is so easy to >duplicate does not mean the artist should be given a percentage of that for each copy.
The thing is, they won't even be rewarded once, because the price that that reward would have to be would be so astronimical that no one would pay it, especially since a perfect copy will be available for free.
The only reason the painter can get away with it is because paintings are not so easily duplicated. Each work is a one-of-a-kind, and if you want one, you will pay whatever it takes. I just looked last weekend at a painting a fellow did - a 3-panel depiction of the burning of Joan of Arc. It took him about FOUR YEARS to do. If the guy wants to make $30,000 a year, that makes that at least a $120,000 painting. He might be able to demand that for this painting, because it is the only one of its kind. But if it could be easily and instantly duplicated and distributed with no payment to him, do you think he could get $120,000 for that painting? I doubt it. So why would he ever invest another 4 years of his life in that endeavor other than for pleasure? It sure won't put food on the table.
>However my main reason I will not buy CD's or DVD's but just rip them off whenever >I can: I donot like the fact that 95+ percent of the retail price of such an item >does not actually go to the artist, but is instead wasted on distribution chains, >record executives, marketing, the "music video" (that I will never see, or even >want to see), and all that other crap.
Gosh, how noble. So instead of paying SOMETHING to the artist, you'd just rather pay nothing.
>The fact that I could get the "goods" easily for free makes a pretty good argument >that that other 95% of t
>No I haven't. I've infringed on a number of patents (potentially), >and possibly diluted Ford's TM (unless I wholly debadge it), >and licensing will be tricky, what with the duplicate VIN, but I havn't committed theft.
>1) I steal your CD. End result: I have your CD, you have no CD. > >2) I copy your CD. End result: You have your CD, I have a copy of your CD. > >Surely you see that there is a huge difference here.
Yes, I do.
Surely you can see that from YOUR perspective, however, there is NO difference here. The end result is the same. You have aquired something of value and not paid for it. Moreover, you aquired it at my cost in both cases.
But even from MY perspective, the difference is trivial. What you are overlooking, though, is that even in the second case, where I technically still have my CD, in point of fact every time someone makes a copy of it you have reduced the MONETARY VALUE of my CD. Why? Because you have increased the supply of that item, which conversely decreases the price I can demand for it. As more and more people copy it, it's value becomes less and less. Eventually, in terms of VALUE, my CD becomes WORTHLESS in terms of monetary value, in spite of the fact that I still physically possess it.
In the case of ME, I suppose you could argue that the monetary value of my CD isn't important, it's the personal, or sentimental value I attach to the music that has value, and that measure of value has not changed by other people copying it. True enough. But this is not true for the guy who MADE the CD. It cost him a lot of money to make that CD. For him, it's the ability to SELL the CD - the MONETARY value that has value. And when you GUT that ability, you have gutted his ability to pay for the process that allowed him to make the CD.
I said: "In both cases you are in possesion of something that you should have paid for to obtain, but you didn't."
>But that isn't the definition of stealing, not as the dictionary puts it, not as the law says it is, >not as kids are tought as... kids for one reason... it si TOO SIMPLISTIC...
The fact of the matter is, stealing has BECOME simplistic, and thus the definition has changed.
Like I have been saying, there is no fundamental difference in the end result whether you walk out of the store with a CD or if you download it off of the internet. THERE IS NO FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE IN THE END RESULT. So how can one be one thing and the other be something else?
>using your argument people can call everything under the sun stealing, which is why this simply will not do.
I'm confused. Please give me an example of something else under the sun that could be called stealing based on my definition?
Tell me, would you? Would you spend, say, a million dollars to create something and then give it to the world for free?
>What scares me the most though is that if ever a device is invented that actually COULD copy a car, >at will, with the possibility of eliminating hunger, poverty, etc.. that it will be banned because >FORD cannot make a profit anymore...
If we ever master the old E=mc^2 equation to where we can run it in reverse at will, it will radically alter the world as we know it. Because at that point, the only commodity of value will be energy. If that day comes, I'll quit worrying over copyright issues, because I won't feel so bad if you stole the creative work of someone who didn't have to spend most of his day working to obtain food, shelter, or any other physical thing.
But in today's world, all of the people who create digital content have bills to pay. They can't afford to give away their work for free.
I said: "Everyone who buys into this "physical product" definition of theft is forgetting one thing: A specific pattern of ones and zeroes IS a physical product!"
>No it isn't. A medium with a physical implementation of a sequence of ones and zeros is.
This is the crux of the arguement. You would argue that it is the MEDIUM that is the product. It is not. Why not? Because a digital copy is, in effect, a perfect copy. It is, for all practical purposes, identical to _and_indistinguishable_from the original.
Don't give me the "Well, you don't get the original case or the original CD or the original artwork." Those things have no value. If it weren't for the digital data INSIDE those things you couldn't give away all of the above. The product is the data. Period.
>Theft is naturally bad because the one who you steal from is deprived of the thing you've stolen. >This is not the case with copyright infringement that deals with non-tangible things costing >nothing to reproduce. The result is a possibly lost sale to you; compare that to theft. >Unlike theft, which is criminalized because it's bad, copyright infringement is >criminalized (and being portrayed as bad) in order for copyright to work. It's this artificial >nature of copyright that makes many people oppose it.
Theft is not naturally bad because you deprive someone of the thing you've stolen. It's bad because you have stolen the VALUE of that thing from them. Walmart isn't upset with you for stealing a shirt because they miss the shirt. They miss the VALUE of that shirt that they should have gotten for you to have that shirt.
I was waiting for the "possibly lost sale". This arguement also holds no water. It is true that many people who pirate things can't afford to buy what they pirated, and thus if they could not pirate, they would not have bought it anyway. But this is not the scenario we are talking about!
We are talking about someone who HAS aquired the good. If you HAVE aquired the good, you should have paid for it.
Further, just because the cost to reproduce something may be zero, this does not mean the cost to produce the ORIGINAL was zero. If it costs me $40 million to produce the first item, but I can produce a million more for free, Either I have to get $40 million for the first item, or I have to get $40 per item for the next million items. If you destroy the later option, which is what piracy does, then only the first option remains. And that is unsustainable.
I said: "In both cases you are in possesion of something that you should have paid for to obtain, but you didn't."
>Your "should" does not explain or substantiate anything. Why should I?
It should be obvious. It is because if you don't pay for it them someone else is bearing the burden for you. You are enjoying the fruits of someone else's labor, for free, without their consent.
>Except whether or not someone should have something is a very subjective judgement. >Now if I see you driving down the street in a mustang and think, "wow what a great car" >and I aim my patented new duplicator beam at it and make myself a car just like yours... >have I stolen your car?
You haven't stolen/my/ car, but you have stolen the car from Ford. Why? Because the end result would be the same as if you stole it: You would be driving around in a car that you did not pay for. That car design cost millions to come up with. If they only sold one and the rest were "free copies", they would never make their money back, and consequently, they would never design another car!
Second of all, how is ownership of something subjective?!?! In our present world and economy, trade works by exchanging things of value for other things of value. If you obtain something of value, you should have to pay someone for it. What's subjective about that?
Hey, if the day ever comes where we have free energy and free replicators so we can all sit on our asses and eat bon-bons while materializing whatever goodies we want today out of thin air, then your arguement might hold some water. Until that day, your "materializing" of stuff comes at a cost to someone else, because if it weren't for the hard work of others you wouldn't be able to make your copy. That's why you are supposed to PAY for it.
>Yes but people aren't stealing that pattern, they are copying it. >The physical pattern still exists in the original location.
But the END RESULT IS THE SAME AS IF YOU HAD STOLEN IT. You have, for all intensive purposes, the original pattern. And you didn't pay for it. If you get something for nothing it's either a gift, has no value, or you stole it.
I fully comprehend the difference in that, in fact, the ORIGINAL data still exists in its original location, so the original stuff has not been stolen. But the fact is irrefutable - your copy is, for all practical purposes, identical to the original. Every time the original gets copied at zero cost it increases the supply, which decreases the demand, which decreases the value of the/true/ original. Essentially, digital copying potentially increases the supply to infinity, which, obviously, has the potential to drive the demand, and likewise the price that can be commanded, to zero. It cost $14 million to develop the true original? Too bad.
>There is a significant difference between stealing and copyright violation. >For example one is violating someone's basic human rights according to the constitution a >nd one is violating an artificial government granted right imposed for a particular purpose. -snip-
Blah Blah Blah. Semantics. Bottom line: You got something of value that you didn't pay for. I'm tired of hearing people dress it up to make themselves feel better.
>Maybe that because it is different. Depriving a retailer of a physical product >is not the same as downloading a digital copy from someone! If I download a >movie off the net which I would never purchase anyways is far different than >stuffing one down my shorts at Walmart. Walmart paid for that DVD and by stealing it, >I have stolen money from them. If I download a movie I haven't taken something away from anyone. >I'm not saying its legal or moral, but it isn't stealing!
You know, I've heard this arguement here on Slashdot for some time now: "Illegal Downloading is not stealing, it is copyright violation!!!"
I have decided I'm not buying it.
The bottom line is that downloading content without paying for it functionally is identical to stealing it because the end result is the same.
In both cases you are in possesion of something that you should have paid for to obtain, but you didn't.
Everyone who buys into this "physical product" definition of theft is forgetting one thing: A specific pattern of ones and zeroes IS a physical product!
Steve P.S. Let's not get into a discussion of "you don't own it you license it".
I think there can be little doubt that the more immersive a simulated environment is, the better a training aid it will become.
I've always wondered, when a simulated world becomes indistinguishable from the real one, how will you be able to tell the difference?
Back to topic, if they could create robots that work in real life driven from the "pilot" in a FPS environment, you could have remote soldiers.
Steve
>3 short comments, albeit hastily written. The three of them are true (well, I think so). >Yet people considered that as a flamebait. Why? I don't know, and I've learned not to care.
Unless brilliantly obvious, short comments are usually considered flippant.
A longer post usually indicates that someone put more mental time into the piece. If it's well worded, this perception increases. If it presents a case in a logical manner, this perception increases even more, even if the reader disagrees with the logic or the case being presented.
Short posts are too short to have the opportunity to convey much, if any of these things, and thus I'm not surprised if they get discounted by many.
>So, basically you're saying that anyone who misunderstands or maybe even >disagrees with you is a moron. >That's my interpretation of what you said, at least. >Either you're trolling or you've just provided more proof that the article is true.
Nah, it's just proof that you are, indeed, a moron.;)
>Without a source of random new music how do you know what you want to buy?
You know, that's an excellent question.
I guess I would say two things:
First, I'm not willing to pay for a random stream that may or may not tickle my fancy to buy new songs. I guess commercial radio is what I would use in that case.
Secondly, maybe I'm getting old and less open to new things, but I'm finding I'm less and less interested in going and finding new music to listen to. Most of my iTunes purchases are caused by some old, cool song rattling around in my head, and I make a mental note to go buy it off of iTunes and add it to my collection later on when I get back to my computer.
I think it's less that I'm not open to new things and more that there is so much old stuff that I know is good that I still don't own that I could spend a lifetime's pocket money on old music and still have old music left over to choose from.
I find this hard to believe. In fact, I'd say the "karma" system here is a good indicator of why it's hard to believe.
I don't think most people are shocked at what the moderator action is to any one of their particular posts. This is why some people preface what they are about to say with, "Mod me as you will...", or "I know I'll burn karma for this but...". People know.
The problem isn't with being able to convey intent with email (words). The problem is with SEMI-LITERATE PEOPLE trying to convey, and conversely intepret, intent with email.
If you take the time to be clear and articulate, there is no way it can only be 50/50 on someone understanding your intent, unless you are speaking to an absolute moron.
>Will digital music distribution fall solely to giants like XM and iTunes?
Yes and no. Legal Digital music distribution will become a pay model, no doubt. But if you are going to pay, you might as well pay for what you want, rather than a random stream. This is why I cancelled my XM subscription. I decided I'd rather pay for music that I want to hear.
>Yes, but until then you're still giving them $60/Mo...
I'm paying $50 a month now for broadband cable internet access. The fact that TV comes along with it is just a bonus. I don't (and won't) pay extra for pay-per-view, HDTV, or whatever other extra bells and whistles they want me to may extra for.
>What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
What part of "there has been no militia, as intended by the founding fathers, since at least 1903" do you not understand? The fact that the federal government has absorbed the state militias so that they now serve to augment, rather than counterbalance federal military power makes it even/more/ necessary that the people be armed. Just because there are no militias anymore does not invalidate the wisdom of the founding fathers to have armed citizens as a counterbalance to tyranny. See Federalist 29.
You hit the nail - it's really the end of CABLE!
on
CableCARD In-Depth
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
>I guess if this happens I can go to using my HDTV for watching movies and just saving lots of money from not using cable or DVRs.
You hit the nail on the head.
The day they succeed in locking down the incoming cable stream so I can't record things and watch them whenever I want to as many times as I want to is the day I no longer need the cable stream.
Already the only reason we have cable TV is because it was cheaper to order broadband internet access/with/ the cable TV than without it. Otherwise we wouldn't even have cable TV - just the internet access.
All they are doing is making TV less and less appealing to me as an entertainment medium.
>A rise of two Celsius, researchers conclude, will be enough to cause: >* Decreasing crop yields in the developing and developed world >* Tripling of poor harvests in Europe and Russia >* Large-scale displacement of people in north Africa from desertification >* Up to 2.8bn people at risk of water shortage >* 97% loss of coral reefs >* Total loss of summer Arctic sea ice causing extinction of the polar bear and the walrus >* Spread of malaria in Africa and north America
Do you think that 99% of the first-world, particularly the people of the US, care one whit about any of those bullet points?
NO!
You want to know the average American's response to all of this?
Gosh! The developing world won't have any food. Shit, they never have any food. Darn! Those Europeans and Ruskies won't have any good crops, either. Whoop-tee-do. Oh No! Those Africans will be displaced by deserts. Wait! You mean Africa isn't already a desert (see bullet #1). Water shortage? As long as you turn on the tap or can reach into the fridge and out comes water, who cares. Only those rich scuba divers care about coral reefs. Oh No! The polar bears and walruses will die! Seen any lately? More disease for Africa?!? Aren't they always dying of some disease there? Can't happen here.
You want to see Americans get concerned about global warming? Tell them Disney Land will be under 20 feet of water. Until that happens, most won't care.
"Please no responses about how such liberties have declined even in countries like the USA. That is a separate discussion."
I'm not interested in getting into a discussion about the relative level of freedom this country enjoys or promotes for others in this thread.
>"Bled to preserve liberties?" So you're saying that instituting Islamic government >in Iraq is "preserving liberties?" Creating a corrupt puppet government and then >ripping it down to create another corrupt puppet government in S. Vietnam is >"preserving liberties?" Supporting muhajadeen who would ultimately create the >Taliban in Afghanistan is "preserving liberties?" (for the record, Reagan >called the muhajadeen (incluing the #1 wanted Bin Laden) "freedom fighters.") >Selling weapons to Iran so that the Contras could fight in El Salvador is >"preserving liberties?" > >The U.S. is not even close to having a clear conscience to be promoting liberty.
I was not attempting to say the US was not without sin. I also did not want to get dragged into a discussion about the sins of the US. Nonetheless, since I am now here I would say the US has bled to preserve liberties more than most nations in history, certainly China. I would say we are far, far, far closer to having a clear conscience with regards to promoting and enjoying liberty than the Chinese.
Further I would say two things about all of your comments I quoted above.
#1 - Until 9/11, it historically has been classic American foreign policy to, rather than actually work to resolve international tensions, merely keep the players occupied for a while. Usually at least 4 years until the second presidential election is over. This has been done by all of the ways you mentioned and then some. Basically keep the "bad guys" at war with each other and out of our hair. This kept them from attacking us very visibly, which was good PR at home, and kept us from having to spend much money on them, which was also good PR. 9/11 was the wake-up call that this sort of "meddle every 4 years" foreign policy will no longer work. Now we have chosen to resort to the much more expensive task of nation building, in the hopes that once they are "civilized" like us they will be too busy with 9-5 jobs, McDonalds, car payments, college tuitions, and mortgages to have time to be blowing stuff up all the time.
#2 - I think anyone who is honest with themselves realizes that very little that the US does in terms of foreign policy, including the business in the Middle East, is about liberty. It's about preserving the interests of the constituency back home. If it was really about liberty, we'd be kicking the butt of every tinpot despot out there.
In spite of all this, it is still my opinion that Americans enjoy more freedoms than many of the world.
Perhaps this is the beginnings of the cracks in the wall that bring forth a flood of free information into China. There is always that hope.
Still, my gut tells me that the right thing to do would be to say, "We will not comply with laws that repress the right to free speach." And if they are not allowed in the market because of that, then they should stay out.
Of course, then I can see a future a hundred years from now when a Free China, now having developed all of its own technology, or some other country that stepped in to provide it, comes back and cleans our clock. Maybe it is better for us to be in bed with the bad guys now in hopes that someday they won't be bad guys and we will still get to be in bed with them. Somehow I'm having a hard time convincing myself that it is a good course.
>Filtering our search results clearly compromises our mission. Failing >to offer Google search at all to a fifth of the world's population, >however, does so far more severely. Whether our critics agree with >our decision or not, due to the severe quality problems faced by users >trying to access Google.com from within China, this is precisely the >choice we believe we faced. By launching Google.cn and making a major >ongoing investment of people and infrastructure within China, we intend >to change that.
In other words, Google has put it's "mission" (its business interests) ahead of what is morally right. Rather than simply take the other, unmentioned option, that is, simply refusing to compromise and not provide any Google services at all, they have compromised so that they can have a market presence in China, lest someone else develop one internally that might come to rival Google later on down the road.
To be fair, I think Google's response in TFA was fair and reasonable - from the perspective of a corporation. It was a hard decision, and they made the best they could - for the corporation. But dammit, I don't like it one bit. This idea of multi-national corporations setting up shop in repressive countries and then claiming, "We're just complying with the local laws" smacks way to much of the old "I was just following orders" line. As far as I'm concerned, such corporations are complicit in the repression and they are profiting off of it to boot.
If corporations cannot be counted on to shun such morally bankrupt regimes then there should be consequences for them in the countries that have bled to preserve liberties.
Steve
P.S. Please no responses about how such liberties have declined even in countries like the USA. That is a separate discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
>Let's assume that we can take car, and make a copy of it (although it will still
>cost you about $2000 in raw materials). Let's also assume you could make a copy
>just using the "raw bistream" (or model) without having the car physically there
>to copy it. Now let's assume EVERY car company is horrified and decides to stop
>producing cars from that day forward.
>I see golden business oppertunities now -- while the old car monopolies are still
>crying over all the lost revenue, I start a company that creates custom designed
>cars -- I could create (or buy) a nice model, then hire people to customize
>these models for customers with special needs. You want a fifth wheel? You
>want a different dashboard layout? 6 gearbox instead of 5? A 2nd steering wheel?
>Special needs for specific handicaps?
Let's say you can design a custom car model in 6 months. How are you going to pay for your design team for those 6 months? Where a modern car company can spread out the cost of development over the sale of thousands or even millions of vehicles, you are going to have to get it all out of ONE. That's going to be a DAMN expensive car. I suspect you may end up with the ocassional rich patron but most people will just copy some existing design for $2000.
>Also, you'd be amazed what people will do for free, as long as it is fun (for them)
>and challenging to do. If people could create a new car model, and then create it
>(physically) you bet your ass TONS of people would do that JUST to drive their
>self designed dream car -- and some of those will give those designs away... free.
Sure. And in this highly hypothetical world it might actually work, because if we really could make things appear at will, then people would not have to work nearly as hard to produce goods.
But back here in the real world, digital content producers, even though they might love what they are doing, still have bills to pay. They need to get paid. Very few people are wealthy enough that they can dabble in what pleases them all day long for free.
>For example, I designed my own filesystem some years ago -- it was very enjoyable,
>and a lot of fun to get it working fast and correctly, and to add new features to
> it. See http://sourceforge.net/projects/smartfilesystem [sourceforge.net] (or
>look on wikipedia) -- it's a project I spend almost 2 years on, then gave away for free.
Presumably you had another source of income on which to live for those two years.
Hey, there is nothing wrong with people who WANT to make things and give them away for free. I'm not against that at all.
I'm against people who want to benefit from the fruits of the labors of people who DON'T want to give them away for free.
A man who works to produce something deserves to be able to sell the fruits of his labor at some price to people who want those fruits. It's not fair to consume the man's fruits for free if they weren't a gift to you.
Steve
>You're wrong. The end result is not what matters, the action is. Stealing is an action,
>not an end result. If I copy a Ford car I have probably infringed on any number of
>patents and trademarks, but I have stolen nothing.
But the end result DOES matter. If anything can be freely copied with no compensation to the original owner, then no physical thing has material value.
I don't care if you burn my house down with matches or a blowtorch - the end result is I don't have a house. I don't care if you steal a CD out of my store or simply make it worthless with infinite copies - either way I'm out my investment.
Ultimately, this argument is pointless. Things will resolve themselves one way or another. Either digtal data is going to become worthless to the point that only the idle rich can afford to produce it, or DMA is going to to lock things down sufficiently that people who make digital content can be reasonbly sure that some minimum number of the people who are consuming it are paying for it.
>By your definition if someone gave >me a gift that would be stealing,
>since I did not pay for it and I still have something.
Surely you can understand that even a gift that was given to you was _paid_for_by_someone. We are not talking about gifts, and you know it.
>True, such a device would greatly change the industry and probably cause large car
>manufacturing operations to lay off thousands. The economic impact would be severe.
>But what does any of this have to do with whether or not it is ethical or legal?
Because thousands of people have put their lives into something with the expectation that they can get paid from it and you are reaping the benefits of that for FREE. You don't see an ethical problem here?
>Would you halt all progress to insure that every business that is making money
>now will continue to do so? The traditional example is the drastic decline
>carriage sales with the advent of the car industry. Plenty of laws were passed
>trying to make cars hard to own and to ensure progress was halted. Back in the
>day in many places if you were driving down the road (at the 5mph speed limit
>designed to ensure cars were no faster than horses) and you saw a horse coming
>you had to pull over and hide your car in the bushes.
Of course I'm not for protecting businesses who's products are eclipsed by a superior product. What you are talking about, though, is not destroying the value of carriages by replacing the carriage with a superior alternative, you are doing it by simply copying it.
It's one thing for a business to fail because it couldn't compete. It's another thing entirely WHEN YOU DON'T EVEN GIVE THEM A CHANCE.
>This is analogous to current copyright laws and the DMCA now. Technology has
>progressed, but the industry wishes it hadn't so they try to artificially
>restrain progress by paying off corrupt politicians.
Sure "technology" has progressed. But not like you would have us believe. Has some technology come along that obsoletes digital data? No. All that has come along is technology that makes copying existing digital data virtually free. It's not about trying to restrain progress, or stifle competition.
>First, the subjective part is where you said "something you should not have."
>Whether or not someone should have something is wholly subjective.
Oh come on. If I stole a CD out of a store, would it be subjective as to whether or not I should have it or not? If you got something, and you didn't pay for it, you should not be in possession of it, unless it is a gift or a loan.
>If I want to sing "happy birthday" that is my natural right. US law does not
>dispute this in any way. It is very clear and well established. So why can't
>I sing "happy birthday" legally?
You can sing "happy birthday" legally to your heart's content. People do it every day. What you can't do is
If only there was an easy way to make hydrogen or ethanol at home!
Steve
>I bought a whole bunch of energy efficient bulbs. Most of them died within a year because they don't like dirty electricity and being cycled rapidly
Ain't that the truth! I have replaced just about all the bulbs in our house with these flourescent guys that are supposed to burn 1/4 of the electricity of a standard bulb and last 7 years.
I've probably had 6 or so that didn't last 3 months. I've got two on right now that if you hit the fan switch instead of the light switch and turn them off, then turn them right back on again when they are hot, they won't re-light.
I have started marking the bulbs with a sharpie pen to write the date on them when I install them, so that when they break, I'm taking the damn things back to Home Depot for a refund.
Cleverly, the writing on the box says I am supposed to mail them back to the manufacturer, but damn, it will probably cost as much to do that as to just buy another bulb, which is, of course, what they are hoping.
Steve
>Except there is. In the first case the store has one less CD and in the second case it doesn't.
/had/ walked out of the store with the CD.
No, there isn't.
In both cases, you have valuable property that you didn't pay for. From your perspective, there is no difference. You ended up with the ones and zeroes and virtually no cost to yourself, no differently than if you
Even from the store's perspective there ultimately will be no difference, either. In both cases, the monetary value of the item is driven to zero. You might as well have stolen the actual CD from the store because the store still won't be able to sell it and get the money out of it that it paid for it.
"Please give me an example of something else under the sun that could be called stealing based on my definition?"
>Going to a friend's place and watching a DVD they bought.
This does not meet my definition, because my definition of stealing has been given as you being in possesion of something that you didn't pay for.
When you go to a friend's place and watch his DVD, you are watching the DVD, and the data on it, that is in HIS possesion, not yours.
Obviously we are not talking about gifts or borrowing, because both were paied for by someone and one was willingly given to you for free and the other you have to give back. We are talking about permanent possession.
Steve
>Oh, but there is a difference even from my perspective. First of all, I used my own
> resources to make a copy.
The resources that you expend to make a copy are so insignificant compared to the resources expended to make the original that they are effectively nil.
>Second, by not physically taking your CD, you are still
>my friend, and you will not feel obliged to report this to the authorities.
Then why are the record companies not your friend when you do this to them? Could it be that it isn't the physical CD that has the value being taken?
>I've got legal CD's here, and the last thing I care about is the 'monetary value'
>of those CD's. In fact, if I told friends of mine they cannot copy my CD's because
>by doing so it would reduce the value of the things I paid for, they'd laugh..
>and rightly so. Not to mention they'd likely will start avoiding me for being a
>complete nutcase.
You don't care about the monetary value of your CDs because _you_don't_need_that_value_to_feed_your_family. Unlike an artist, and all of the thousands of people employed bringing an artist's music to market.
>Sorry, I see no reason why an artist that creates a hit-single has the RIGHT to demand
>payment for that single act millions of times.
Well just what, then, would you suggest? Selling only the original copy? How much do you think he would have to sell that original copy for in order to feed his family for, say, six months? $30,000? $20,000? Are you going to step up and pay that? Is anyone, when they know they can just wait and get a copy for free?
>In fact, that artist would probably never need to create a hit-single again, and could >just retire and never do anything artistic ever again -- a great loss for us all.
And yet while some artists do indeed do this, many do not. Why?
How many artists do you think would be inspired to write another song after making a million bucks on the first one? How many artists do you think would be inspired to write another song after making nothing on the first one?
>If instead they were only rewarded once (like a painter for a great piece of work)
>then there'd be incentive to produce more art. Just because music is so easy to
>duplicate does not mean the artist should be given a percentage of that for each copy.
The thing is, they won't even be rewarded once, because the price that that reward would have to be would be so astronimical that no one would pay it, especially since a perfect copy will be available for free.
The only reason the painter can get away with it is because paintings are not so easily duplicated. Each work is a one-of-a-kind, and if you want one, you will pay whatever it takes. I just looked last weekend at a painting a fellow did - a 3-panel depiction of the burning of Joan of Arc. It took him about FOUR YEARS to do. If the guy wants to make $30,000 a year, that makes that at least a $120,000 painting. He might be able to demand that for this painting, because it is the only one of its kind. But if it could be easily and instantly duplicated and distributed with no payment to him, do you think he could get $120,000 for that painting? I doubt it. So why would he ever invest another 4 years of his life in that endeavor other than for pleasure? It sure won't put food on the table.
>However my main reason I will not buy CD's or DVD's but just rip them off whenever
>I can: I donot like the fact that 95+ percent of the retail price of such an item
>does not actually go to the artist, but is instead wasted on distribution chains,
>record executives, marketing, the "music video" (that I will never see, or even
>want to see), and all that other crap.
Gosh, how noble. So instead of paying SOMETHING to the artist, you'd just rather pay nothing.
>The fact that I could get the "goods" easily for free makes a pretty good argument
>that that other 95% of t
>No I haven't. I've infringed on a number of patents (potentially),
>and possibly diluted Ford's TM (unless I wholly debadge it),
>and licensing will be tricky, what with the duplicate VIN, but I havn't committed theft.
Tell me how the end result for you is different?
Steve
>1) I steal your CD. End result: I have your CD, you have no CD.
>
>2) I copy your CD. End result: You have your CD, I have a copy of your CD.
>
>Surely you see that there is a huge difference here.
Yes, I do.
Surely you can see that from YOUR perspective, however, there is NO difference here. The end result is the same. You have aquired something of value and not paid for it. Moreover, you aquired it at my cost in both cases.
But even from MY perspective, the difference is trivial. What you are overlooking, though, is that even in the second case, where I technically still have my CD, in point of fact every time someone makes a copy of it you have reduced the MONETARY VALUE of my CD. Why? Because you have increased the supply of that item, which conversely decreases the price I can demand for it. As more and more people copy it, it's value becomes less and less. Eventually, in terms of VALUE, my CD becomes WORTHLESS in terms of monetary value, in spite of the fact that I still physically possess it.
In the case of ME, I suppose you could argue that the monetary value of my CD isn't important, it's the personal, or sentimental value I attach to the music that has value, and that measure of value has not changed by other people copying it. True enough. But this is not true for the guy who MADE the CD. It cost him a lot of money to make that CD. For him, it's the ability to SELL the CD - the MONETARY value that has value. And when you GUT that ability, you have gutted his ability to pay for the process that allowed him to make the CD.
Steve
I said:
"In both cases you are in possesion of something that you should have paid for to obtain, but you didn't."
>But that isn't the definition of stealing, not as the dictionary puts it, not as the law says it is,
>not as kids are tought as... kids for one reason... it si TOO SIMPLISTIC...
The fact of the matter is, stealing has BECOME simplistic, and thus the definition has changed.
Like I have been saying, there is no fundamental difference in the end result whether you walk out of the store with a CD or if you download it off of the internet. THERE IS NO FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE IN THE END RESULT. So how can one be one thing and the other be something else?
>using your argument people can call everything under the sun stealing, which is why this simply will not do.
I'm confused. Please give me an example of something else under the sun that could be called stealing based on my definition?
Steve
>Oh they would, or someone else will.
Tell me, would you? Would you spend, say, a million dollars to create something and then give it to the world for free?
>What scares me the most though is that if ever a device is invented that actually COULD copy a car,
>at will, with the possibility of eliminating hunger, poverty, etc.. that it will be banned because
>FORD cannot make a profit anymore...
If we ever master the old E=mc^2 equation to where we can run it in reverse at will, it will radically alter the world as we know it. Because at that point, the only commodity of value will be energy. If that day comes, I'll quit worrying over copyright issues, because I won't feel so bad if you stole the creative work of someone who didn't have to spend most of his day working to obtain food, shelter, or any other physical thing.
But in today's world, all of the people who create digital content have bills to pay. They can't afford to give away their work for free.
Steve
I said:
"Everyone who buys into this "physical product" definition of theft is forgetting one thing: A specific pattern of ones and zeroes IS a physical product!"
>No it isn't. A medium with a physical implementation of a sequence of ones and zeros is.
This is the crux of the arguement. You would argue that it is the MEDIUM that is the product. It is not. Why not? Because a digital copy is, in effect, a perfect copy. It is, for all practical purposes, identical to _and_indistinguishable_from the original.
Don't give me the "Well, you don't get the original case or the original CD or the original artwork." Those things have no value. If it weren't for the digital data INSIDE those things you couldn't give away all of the above. The product is the data. Period.
>Theft is naturally bad because the one who you steal from is deprived of the thing you've stolen.
>This is not the case with copyright infringement that deals with non-tangible things costing
>nothing to reproduce. The result is a possibly lost sale to you; compare that to theft.
>Unlike theft, which is criminalized because it's bad, copyright infringement is
>criminalized (and being portrayed as bad) in order for copyright to work. It's this artificial
>nature of copyright that makes many people oppose it.
Theft is not naturally bad because you deprive someone of the thing you've stolen. It's bad because you have stolen the VALUE of that thing from them. Walmart isn't upset with you for stealing a shirt because they miss the shirt. They miss the VALUE of that shirt that they should have gotten for you to have that shirt.
I was waiting for the "possibly lost sale". This arguement also holds no water. It is true that many people who pirate things can't afford to buy what they pirated, and thus if they could not pirate, they would not have bought it anyway. But this is not the scenario we are talking about!
We are talking about someone who HAS aquired the good. If you HAVE aquired the good, you should have paid for it.
Further, just because the cost to reproduce something may be zero, this does not mean the cost to produce the ORIGINAL was zero. If it costs me $40 million to produce the first item, but I can produce a million more for free, Either I have to get $40 million for the first item, or I have to get $40 per item for the next million items. If you destroy the later option, which is what piracy does, then only the first option remains. And that is unsustainable.
I said:
"In both cases you are in possesion of something that you should have paid for to obtain, but you didn't."
>Your "should" does not explain or substantiate anything. Why should I?
It should be obvious. It is because if you don't pay for it them someone else is bearing the burden for you. You are enjoying the fruits of someone else's labor, for free, without their consent.
Steve
>Except whether or not someone should have something is a very subjective judgement.
/my/ car, but you have stolen the car from Ford. Why? Because the end result would be the same as if you stole it: You would be driving around in a car that you did not pay for. That car design cost millions to come up with. If they only sold one and the rest were "free copies", they would never make their money back, and consequently, they would never design another car!
/true/ original. Essentially, digital copying potentially increases the supply to infinity, which, obviously, has the potential to drive the demand, and likewise the price that can be commanded, to zero. It cost $14 million to develop the true original? Too bad.
>Now if I see you driving down the street in a mustang and think, "wow what a great car"
>and I aim my patented new duplicator beam at it and make myself a car just like yours...
>have I stolen your car?
You haven't stolen
Second of all, how is ownership of something subjective?!?! In our present world and economy, trade works by exchanging things of value for other things of value. If you obtain something of value, you should have to pay someone for it. What's subjective about that?
Hey, if the day ever comes where we have free energy and free replicators so we can all sit on our asses and eat bon-bons while materializing whatever goodies we want today out of thin air, then your arguement might hold some water. Until that day, your "materializing" of stuff comes at a cost to someone else, because if it weren't for the hard work of others you wouldn't be able to make your copy. That's why you are supposed to PAY for it.
>Yes but people aren't stealing that pattern, they are copying it.
>The physical pattern still exists in the original location.
But the END RESULT IS THE SAME AS IF YOU HAD STOLEN IT. You have, for all intensive purposes, the original pattern. And you didn't pay for it. If you get something for nothing it's either a gift, has no value, or you stole it.
I fully comprehend the difference in that, in fact, the ORIGINAL data still exists in its original location, so the original stuff has not been stolen. But the fact is irrefutable - your copy is, for all practical purposes, identical to the original. Every time the original gets copied at zero cost it increases the supply, which decreases the demand, which decreases the value of the
>There is a significant difference between stealing and copyright violation.
>For example one is violating someone's basic human rights according to the constitution a
>nd one is violating an artificial government granted right imposed for a particular purpose.
-snip-
Blah Blah Blah. Semantics. Bottom line: You got something of value that you didn't pay for. I'm tired of hearing people dress it up to make themselves feel better.
Steve
>Maybe that because it is different. Depriving a retailer of a physical product
>is not the same as downloading a digital copy from someone! If I download a
>movie off the net which I would never purchase anyways is far different than
>stuffing one down my shorts at Walmart. Walmart paid for that DVD and by stealing it,
>I have stolen money from them. If I download a movie I haven't taken something away from anyone.
>I'm not saying its legal or moral, but it isn't stealing!
You know, I've heard this arguement here on Slashdot for some time now: "Illegal Downloading is not stealing, it is copyright violation!!!"
I have decided I'm not buying it.
The bottom line is that downloading content without paying for it functionally is identical to stealing it because the end result is the same.
In both cases you are in possesion of something that you should have paid for to obtain, but you didn't.
Everyone who buys into this "physical product" definition of theft is forgetting one thing: A specific pattern of ones and zeroes IS a physical product!
Steve
P.S. Let's not get into a discussion of "you don't own it you license it".
I think there can be little doubt that the more immersive a simulated environment is, the better a training aid it will become. I've always wondered, when a simulated world becomes indistinguishable from the real one, how will you be able to tell the difference? Back to topic, if they could create robots that work in real life driven from the "pilot" in a FPS environment, you could have remote soldiers. Steve
>3 short comments, albeit hastily written. The three of them are true (well, I think so).
>Yet people considered that as a flamebait. Why? I don't know, and I've learned not to care.
Unless brilliantly obvious, short comments are usually considered flippant.
A longer post usually indicates that someone put more mental time into the piece. If it's well worded, this perception increases. If it presents a case in a logical manner, this perception increases even more, even if the reader disagrees with the logic or the case being presented.
Short posts are too short to have the opportunity to convey much, if any of these things, and thus I'm not surprised if they get discounted by many.
Steve
>So, basically you're saying that anyone who misunderstands or maybe even
;)
>disagrees with you is a moron.
>That's my interpretation of what you said, at least.
>Either you're trolling or you've just provided more proof that the article is true.
Nah, it's just proof that you are, indeed, a moron.
Steve
>Without a source of random new music how do you know what you want to buy?
You know, that's an excellent question.
I guess I would say two things:
First, I'm not willing to pay for a random stream that may or may not tickle my fancy to buy new songs. I guess commercial radio is what I would use in that case.
Secondly, maybe I'm getting old and less open to new things, but I'm finding I'm less and less interested in going and finding new music to listen to. Most of my iTunes purchases are caused by some old, cool song rattling around in my head, and I make a mental note to go buy it off of iTunes and add it to my collection later on when I get back to my computer.
I think it's less that I'm not open to new things and more that there is so much old stuff that I know is good that I still don't own that I could spend a lifetime's pocket money on old music and still have old music left over to choose from.
Steve
I find this hard to believe. In fact, I'd say the "karma" system here is a good indicator of why it's hard to believe.
I don't think most people are shocked at what the moderator action is to any one of their particular posts. This is why some people preface what they are about to say with, "Mod me as you will...", or "I know I'll burn karma for this but...". People know.
The problem isn't with being able to convey intent with email (words). The problem is with SEMI-LITERATE PEOPLE trying to convey, and conversely intepret, intent with email.
If you take the time to be clear and articulate, there is no way it can only be 50/50 on someone understanding your intent, unless you are speaking to an absolute moron.
Steve
>Will digital music distribution fall solely to giants like XM and iTunes?
Yes and no. Legal Digital music distribution will become a pay model, no doubt. But if you are going to pay, you might as well pay for what you want, rather than a random stream. This is why I cancelled my XM subscription. I decided I'd rather pay for music that I want to hear.
Steve
>Yes, but until then you're still giving them $60/Mo...
/more/ necessary that the people be armed. Just because there are no militias anymore does not invalidate the wisdom of the founding fathers to have armed citizens as a counterbalance to tyranny. See Federalist 29.
f ed29.htm
I'm paying $50 a month now for broadband cable internet access. The fact that TV comes along with it is just a bonus. I don't (and won't) pay extra for pay-per-view, HDTV, or whatever other extra bells and whistles they want me to may extra for.
>What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
What part of "there has been no militia, as intended by the founding fathers, since at least 1903" do you not understand? The fact that the federal government has absorbed the state militias so that they now serve to augment, rather than counterbalance federal military power makes it even
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/
Steve
>I guess if this happens I can go to using my HDTV for watching movies and just saving lots of money from not using cable or DVRs.
/with/ the cable TV than without it. Otherwise we wouldn't even have cable TV - just the internet access.
You hit the nail on the head.
The day they succeed in locking down the incoming cable stream so I can't record things and watch them whenever I want to as many times as I want to is the day I no longer need the cable stream.
Already the only reason we have cable TV is because it was cheaper to order broadband internet access
All they are doing is making TV less and less appealing to me as an entertainment medium.
Steve
>A rise of two Celsius, researchers conclude, will be enough to cause:
>* Decreasing crop yields in the developing and developed world
>* Tripling of poor harvests in Europe and Russia
>* Large-scale displacement of people in north Africa from desertification
>* Up to 2.8bn people at risk of water shortage
>* 97% loss of coral reefs
>* Total loss of summer Arctic sea ice causing extinction of the polar bear and the walrus
>* Spread of malaria in Africa and north America
Do you think that 99% of the first-world, particularly the people of the US, care one whit about any of those bullet points?
NO!
You want to know the average American's response to all of this?
Gosh! The developing world won't have any food. Shit, they never have any food.
Darn! Those Europeans and Ruskies won't have any good crops, either. Whoop-tee-do.
Oh No! Those Africans will be displaced by deserts. Wait! You mean Africa isn't already a desert (see bullet #1).
Water shortage? As long as you turn on the tap or can reach into the fridge and out comes water, who cares.
Only those rich scuba divers care about coral reefs.
Oh No! The polar bears and walruses will die! Seen any lately?
More disease for Africa?!? Aren't they always dying of some disease there? Can't happen here.
You want to see Americans get concerned about global warming? Tell them Disney Land will be under 20 feet of water. Until that happens, most won't care.
Steve
Perhaps you missed my intention when I said:
"Please no responses about how such liberties have declined even in countries like the USA. That is a separate discussion."
I'm not interested in getting into a discussion about the relative level of freedom this country enjoys or promotes for others in this thread.
>"Bled to preserve liberties?" So you're saying that instituting Islamic government
>in Iraq is "preserving liberties?" Creating a corrupt puppet government and then
>ripping it down to create another corrupt puppet government in S. Vietnam is
>"preserving liberties?" Supporting muhajadeen who would ultimately create the
>Taliban in Afghanistan is "preserving liberties?" (for the record, Reagan
>called the muhajadeen (incluing the #1 wanted Bin Laden) "freedom fighters.")
>Selling weapons to Iran so that the Contras could fight in El Salvador is
>"preserving liberties?"
>
>The U.S. is not even close to having a clear conscience to be promoting liberty.
I was not attempting to say the US was not without sin. I also did not want to get dragged into a discussion about the sins of the US. Nonetheless, since I am now here I would say the US has bled to preserve liberties more than most nations in history, certainly China. I would say we are far, far, far closer to having a clear conscience with regards to promoting and enjoying liberty than the Chinese.
Further I would say two things about all of your comments I quoted above.
#1 - Until 9/11, it historically has been classic American foreign policy to, rather than actually work to resolve international tensions, merely keep the players occupied for a while. Usually at least 4 years until the second presidential election is over. This has been done by all of the ways you mentioned and then some. Basically keep the "bad guys" at war with each other and out of our hair. This kept them from attacking us very visibly, which was good PR at home, and kept us from having to spend much money on them, which was also good PR. 9/11 was the wake-up call that this sort of "meddle every 4 years" foreign policy will no longer work. Now we have chosen to resort to the much more expensive task of nation building, in the hopes that once they are "civilized" like us they will be too busy with 9-5 jobs, McDonalds, car payments, college tuitions, and mortgages to have time to be blowing stuff up all the time.
#2 - I think anyone who is honest with themselves realizes that very little that the US does in terms of foreign policy, including the business in the Middle East, is about liberty. It's about preserving the interests of the constituency back home. If it was really about liberty, we'd be kicking the butt of every tinpot despot out there.
In spite of all this, it is still my opinion that Americans enjoy more freedoms than many of the world.
Steve
Perhaps this is the beginnings of the cracks in the wall that bring forth a flood of free information into China. There is always that hope.
Still, my gut tells me that the right thing to do would be to say, "We will not comply with laws that repress the right to free speach." And if they are not allowed in the market because of that, then they should stay out.
Of course, then I can see a future a hundred years from now when a Free China, now having developed all of its own technology, or some other country that stepped in to provide it, comes back and cleans our clock. Maybe it is better for us to be in bed with the bad guys now in hopes that someday they won't be bad guys and we will still get to be in bed with them. Somehow I'm having a hard time convincing myself that it is a good course.
Steve
From TFA:
>Filtering our search results clearly compromises our mission. Failing
>to offer Google search at all to a fifth of the world's population,
>however, does so far more severely. Whether our critics agree with
>our decision or not, due to the severe quality problems faced by users
>trying to access Google.com from within China, this is precisely the
>choice we believe we faced. By launching Google.cn and making a major
>ongoing investment of people and infrastructure within China, we intend
>to change that.
In other words, Google has put it's "mission" (its business interests) ahead of what is morally right. Rather than simply take the other, unmentioned option, that is, simply refusing to compromise and not provide any Google services at all, they have compromised so that they can have a market presence in China, lest someone else develop one internally that might come to rival Google later on down the road.
To be fair, I think Google's response in TFA was fair and reasonable - from the perspective of a corporation. It was a hard decision, and they made the best they could - for the corporation. But dammit, I don't like it one bit. This idea of multi-national corporations setting up shop in repressive countries and then claiming, "We're just complying with the local laws" smacks way to much of the old "I was just following orders" line. As far as I'm concerned, such corporations are complicit in the repression and they are profiting off of it to boot.
If corporations cannot be counted on to shun such morally bankrupt regimes then there should be consequences for them in the countries that have bled to preserve liberties.
Steve
P.S.
Please no responses about how such liberties have declined even in countries like the USA. That is a separate discussion.