Public libraries are very limited. Radio even more.
Sorry, I just disagree. When I was in high school, I listened to all the jazz classics, and they were all at the public library. They also had all kinds of way-out genres of music. I don't think radio is that limited. Many radio stations, using something rather similar to this "street performer" thing you are so fond of, are able to offer a broad range of music. If there was a dearth of good member supported stations, this would IMO be strong evidence that the "street performer" model doesn't work. BUt IMO it works pretty well for radio stations.
b) The infrastructure that will be in place in one or two years will be capable of streaming music into homes for a low monthly fee.
Maybe for upper/middle class Americans who live near the city, yes. For most people, it won't be.
And the problem with allowing the scientist to copyright his discovery is that it will increase the number of people who will be bald and have scales on their faces.
Simply put, NONSENSE. Anyone can write a review of the article that the scientist publishes. Of course, if they invent a cure for something and patent their invention, then that's a different thing altogether. But copyright itself does not impede "the flow of information", it simply impedes plagiarism. I am not violating a copyright by reviewing or summarising the findings of a copyrighted work. BTW, scientific articles are usually copyrighted to the journal in which they are published or the author.
It is better than not for the scientist for him to be able to extort a price based on the utility of his discovery (rather than the cost), but he is in no way entitled to this.
You are talking nonsense. Copyright does not enable him to extort a damn thing. Anyone can read his paper until they understand the phenomenom, and write their own article and release it to the public. This is not a copyright violation.
It appears that you agree that there is no difference between authorship and other public goods (as you have listed none).
In the example you mention ( a scientific discovery ) there are several differences.
This seems to me to lead to the conclusion that authorship should be encouraged by society by whatever means is most beneficial to society, and that authors have no rights beyond that. Do you agree?
You could argue that all rules should only be made for the benefit of society and noone has any rights beyond that. And maybe that's good enough for the average Marxist, or utilitarian ( who are both concerned primarily with the "good of society", but measure this in different ways ) The problem with this is that it sets the scene for a "tyranny of the majority". So I don't really agree with your point of view. The fact that something might seem "better for society" is not in itself a justification. However, I think that in this case, what is good for authors is by and large good for the public. I consider copyrights to be good for both. Tax-dollar funded music is also good for both, but it's not a replacement for the copyright system IMO. The "street performer" idea is interesting, but in practice it doesn't seem that bands have had success in raising much funds this way. The model does work quite well for public radio though.
... which includes a bunch of other useful information that you won't find anywhere else. Including for example, how to make those tiny Netscape fonts a tad larger.
ndentation is the only thing that makes phyton designed for structured design?
Python is not just about a new indentation scheme. It has other nice features -- for example, a decent OO system.
Pike looks interesting, however, its module collection is not as extensive as perls or pythons. AFAICT it doesn't seem to do regular expressions, and lacks some of the data types perl/python have ( such as linked lists ). But it's new and no doubt it will evolve. Still, I don't see a compelling reason to use pike over perl or python.
Seriously. I also hated the idea, but after actually trying it, it was a pleasure to use. I found that in practice, I indented everything properly, so python wasn't really forcing me to do anything differently.
As for the issue of cramping your style, most style issues boil down to where you put brackets, which is of course a non-issue in python. If you really are consistent, I doubt you'll hate it.
In practice, being forced to indent properly isn't more difficult than being forced to close those brackets. It's a nice clean language, partly because of the whitespace thing.
Of course, I could go on all day, but the only way you will be convinced is if you really gie it a shot. But I came into it like you -- I was sceptical and a big perl fan. I'm still a big perl fan, but python is also pretty cool.
So? I'm still not dispossessing you of it; I'm possessing myself of it
OK, I acknowledge that a deadbeat is different from a thief (-;
Actually, the economics of it are simple enough for everyone to understand. Let's say that authors are, in total, payed the same under the new system as they are now. In that case, people would, on average, spend the same amount of money.
... but the way the costs were distributed would change.
However, they would have access to orders of magnitude more information.
There are already public libraries and radio shows. I doubt that it would make a whole lot of difference.
A person could have every piece of music ever recorded in his personal collection.
(a) The utiity of this would be somewhat limited. (b) Not really true anyway, because you'd still need to pay for media asnd distribution.
Once again, problems which are impossible for me to address, as you failed to list any of them.
Allow me to spell it out to you -- when you have a self selected sample, you have big problems. I thought this was self-evident. For example, how many people would be prepared to write down on their tax form that they purchased 100 pornographic videos last year ? Basically, what this idea says is "give up your right to privacy or we'll retrench your favourite artist". I think that if you have a lot of people refusing to cooperate, then it is a big problem. Of course, if almost everyone cooperates, it not a big problem. If you ask people to put this kind of data on their tax forms, you'll have a lot of people that will refuse to do so.
In the example with the scientist, typically, they will be funded by a university. This works well for scientists. It also works well for musicians, some of whom are also publically funded ( again, by universities ). However, I don't see why this model need be practised to the exclusion of the copyright system. BTW, with the inventor, what you are forgetting is that they could patent their invention. This is how companies protect their inventions. So in short, there are also systems in place to protect inventors ( I'm not going to discuss their effectiveness ). The difference in this case is that patent protection which is applicable to scientific discoveries is considerably more far-reaching than copyright protection, and if it's abused, it is more of an obstruction than a benefit to inventors. OTOH, copyrights are rather narrow -- it is quite difficult to independently create a work identical to an existing copyright work.
o matter how many times I copy it, you still have the idea. You can still use it.
The utility of it greatly decreases, since the main use it has for the author is as a source of income.
If you think my undercutting your prices and beating you in business is "dispossessing" you, then.. well.. then your comments have no place in a capitalist society;)
You are not competing fairly ! I am making a creative work, AND trying to distribute it, you are merely distributing it ( ie leeching off my creative work ). Do you see the problem with this ??? The problem is precisely that it assigns zero economic worth to the creative process -- the only way to be compensed is by distribution. The artist is doing the "real work", and yet, you are trying to argue that a random distributor is a deserving of compensation as the artist. This I find absurd.
Taxes are not "nothing".
No, they're not. But you'll have one hell of a hard time explaining to the American people why it's in their best interests to pay more taxes. One thing I really don't like about using government funds is that the whole thing would become a political football, and it would be vulnerable to cuts whenever someone who didn't like music got in. The Universities have the same problems nowadays.
Right, and in the face of that sort of competition, CD's would obviously become much cheaper than they are now.
As I said, I don't think that kind of competition is fair, because it completely ignores the fact that the artists contribution, and only recompenses distributors. The artist only receives compensation for their efforts as a distributor, but not as an artist. There's better ways of acheiving the same effect. One is to prevent record distributors from acquiring exclusive distribution rights.
Well, it could obviously be voluntary.
And as such, obviously problematic.
for the reason that you had the option of expending effort on something that is *not* a public good instead.
Well I guess it boils down to whether or not we are serious about creating financial incentives for those who expend effort on what you call a "public good". Copyrights certainly do this. A tax funded system could also do this, but it has a lot of problems -- it's vulnerable to political interference and sudden funding cuts, and the American public are not great fans of tax increases.
If I plant some trees and, through various methods, cut my CO2 emissions in half thus benefitting the entire world, do I have a *right* to payment?
The way I'd look at it is that if you do pollute, you should be penalised financially depending on how much you pollute. Since everyone does it to some degree, the "penalty" should be compensatory as opposed to punitive. It's only fair, you're trashing the public space. Now if you're trashing the public space *less* than everyone else, then I would certainly argue that relative to everyone else, you are entitled to favourable treatment, which means lower taxes.
ronic that you use this word. Copying something of yours doesn't dispossess you of it.
On a large scale, it does -- because it reduces my creative work to something worthless. My creation is being widley used but I'm not getting payed. Does this not seem unjust ? If you put in a good weeks work, and then the boss only decided to pay you for 4 days work, would you feel like you'd been screwed ?
You're dodging the point about the money analogy not being applicable, but in any case, a software license only applies to people who agree to it.
If the license costs money, and the copier is assisting a lot of people from purchasing the license, then they are involved in the copyright violation. The people who don't buy a license are not entitled to use the software, and the people that copy the software for the benefit of such people are accessories to this breach.
Rather than answer you here, I'll direct you to my previous post, here
Ah yes, freeloader friendly. Sure to be popular on slashdot because you get something for nothing. However, the problem is that once the item can be freely copied, there's no reason to buy it. Someone can just burn "warez" copies that are just as good sound-quality wise. This is why we have copyrights in the first place.
Based on usage
You can't measure usage based on sales ( which will, incidently, be minimal since there's not really an incentive to buy it once you allow copying ). As for this idea of tracking devices, this idea is objectionable from a privacy standpoint. I don't want the feds monitoring my listening habits. This is worse, much worse, than intel's pentium III number thing. This is the kind of breach that the typical slashdotter goes blue in the face about, but I suppose it's alright as long as the end result is that you get something for nothing.
The point is that government-enforced monopolies require a force of a different kind than defensive. They require force taken against a peaceful action
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here. As I've mentioned, I believe that this government action is defensive, because the action of illegaly copying is not at all peaceful. Rather, it is aggression by stealth. The stealth element does not make it peaceful. Dispossesing someone is an act of agression whether you do it quietly or loudly.
Money is, really, a type of contract. The reason it can't be copied is that one cannot sign another's name to a contract.
A software license is also a type of contract. Like money, copying restrictions are necessary to make the contract work.
Obviously you know that the purpose of copyright abolition is to make information more freely accessible to people. The less profitable nature of the creation of information is merely a side-effect. Why would I want authors to make less profits?
I think this says it all. You want to disposses the authors of their creative work and give it back to the "comrades". This kind of Marxist rhetoric has its place, but that place is not in a capitalist society.
No, my proposal is that the current solution in place is an action of government, in spite of the fact that it is not treated as such by people such as you
THe SEC regulations are also put their by "acts of government", but this does not mean that they should not be there. I would ask you what you propose in the place of the copyright system. It's not good enough to advocate vanmdalism of the current system if you are not willing or able to come up with viable alternatives.
Actually, I don't. What are you trying to say? That if I don't like the laws, I should move?
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the current system fosters creativity, and your Marxist rhetoric taken to it's extreme does not. I am pointing out that the end result of an application of your ideas are probably not something you or anyone else will want to live with. Sure, in the short term, the rioting masses, like the LA mob, will get a cheap thrill from the fact that they can disposses others. Unfortunately, dispossesing others does not generate creative works, and while you get a short term flood, the long term effect is quite the opposite.
As for you having "the might", sure you do. This further advances my case that your actions are not at all peaceful. You are using your might to disposses others, in much the same way that the LA mob did. You are no more peaceful than the thugs who broke windows and looted stores, even if you have more stealth than them.
That's exactly like something I proposed earlier in this thread (RMS's suggestion)! Go look it up.
I will. I bet that if RMS likes it though, it's a freeloader-friendly idea. Freeloader friendly ideas simply are not viable, because once you allow freeloading, you provide disincentives to pay up, namely "why should I if I don't have to". Unless you fund it through the tax system ( which is the solution to the policing problem you raised earlier )
It limits what two consenting adults can do alone in a vacuum.
If one of the consenting adults is the copyright holder, this is false ( otherwise, the copyright holder could hold out until the other guy pays up ). On the other hand, if neither is, then you are still wrong, because they are not "in a vacuum" -- the copyrighted work is there as well.
I don't see how extending the realm of government subsidies of the arts to popular music would create any more of a problem.
How do we decide who gets funding ? There are definitely problems using this model as a replacement for the copyright system, though I could certainly accept it as a supplement. Ditto for software. I do not object to the existence of such a system, but I certainly object to it being practised to the exclusion of the copyright system.
Copyrighted works are not "ideas". One does not copyright an idea, one patents it.
And I didn't claim that copyright is designed to "make art as profitable as someone wants it". It is designed as a means of having a market place for creative works. As such, it can be only as profitable as the market are willing and able to make it.
Not really. It only requires the prevention of force. Of course, the prevention of force generally must be done via force. But no force other than the prevention of force is required for private ownership of property. This is not the case for copyright
I am not clear on how theft always requires force. Entering an open window doesn't require force. Breaking into a car doesn't require any more "force" than circumventing a technological copy protection mechanism. The fact that copyright violaters are more like cat burglars than armed robbers does not make a big difference IMO.
Copy protection is unprecidented.
I am not clear on what you mean by this. However, I'll point out that the question of copyright protection is really only an issue because it's easy to copy nowadays. Before it was easy to copy, it was less of an issue.
It's one thing to protect an asset from being taken, and quite another to prevent it from being copied.
You could say the same about money. The problem is that copying money degrades the currency. Likewise, copying intellectual assets destroys the information economy ie it makes it next to impossible for the authors of creative content to be compensated. This is why we have an "information economy" in the first place.
Well, government-enforced monopoly is not a free market.
The government have a monopoly on printing dollar bills, so you could equally argue that this is not a "free market". The fact that you recognise creative works ( or more precisely, the right to control a creative work ) as having an owner does not violate the definition of free market. It simply broadens the notion of property in such a way as to recognise that creative work does have value and can be sold on the market place.
[irrelevant analogies snipped] If the "street performer protocol" and other methods are really a more efficient way of doing things, then surely, it should replace the copyright system -- because it will give consumers a better deal without harming the author. However, this is not the case. The truth is that these models make it easy to freeload ( which I take it is precisely why slashdotters argue so passionately for them ) and provide an economic disincentive for anyone to pay up ( namely: "I'll just let someone else pay up, since I can get the product anyway" ). Basically, these "ideas" assign zero value in an economic sense to the production of creative works. This is a problem, and the only viable solution appears to be to create an economic system for creative works, which is essentially what copyright is about.
Why would they? If the government is granting someone privilege, why would they voluntarily surrender it?
At least we agree that the copyright abolitionists are primarily trying to make life less profitable for the authors of creative works.
If everyone on the block combines to form a pool to pay a guard together, it's in my best interests not to join -- they'll pay either way, and I'll get the service either way. Etc. Information fits well into that category. It's a common problem, and the usual solution is government.
I see. So is your proposed solution in this instance "government" ? I think someone else mentioned something like "go move to Havana and listen to the state orchestra" -- kind of blunt, but you get the idea, huh ?
The problem is that with creative works, we really need some kind of market place, so that consumers can vote, instead of the government dictating the terms to consumers. In some sense, the idea of having the government directly control creative content is more of a violation of free market principles than simply saying "we need some kind of economic system to handle creative works" and inventing copyrights.
There's nothing in principle wrong with circumventing peoples' means of compensation -- especially when those means require the use of force.
The very notion of property requires the use of force. The notion of "money" requires laws that forcefully obstruct you from counterfeiting. The fact that force must be used to protect the copyright holder does not mean that there is somehow something "wrong" with copyrights.
As for "nothing wrong with circumventing people's means to compensation", well I don't see how it's substantially different from theft. Circumventing a moral obligation to compense is IMO morally equivalent to outright theft. And yes, if the author wishes to choose the copyright scheme as their means of compensation, then I believe there is a moral obligation to recompense the author as required by the copyright. I think this case is made even stronger by the fact that copyright seems to be the most effective means of distributed payment -- it is the only one in widespread use today.
but to a certain extent we can say that if your occupation couldn't support you on a free market, you have no place complaining when it fails to support you
I don't see how copyrights are an obstruction to a "free market". You could use the same reasoning to argue that laws forbidding counterfeiting are somehow an "obstruction" to the free market. The fact that an asset is intangible does not mean that the law should not recognise and protect it. It seems that some musicians survive well in the free market -- consumers are certainly free to boycott bands that don't use the "street performer protocol", but it seems that consumers are voting for the copyright system in droves, with their wallets.
By the way, I am very glad you raised the notion of free markets. Tell me this -- if the "street performer" thing and all these other freeloader-friendly models are really superior to the copyright model, why haven't they prevailed, when the current law allows copyrights and other models to co-exist ?
Information is a public good.
Copyrighted works are not really "information". And I don't see why they are a "public good". I see this point of view as one step away from simply declaring that "property is a public good". Sure, it's tempting for someone who produces no creative work to claim that creative work is not something that one has the right to receive compensation for. But I think that this viewpoint smacks of an utter disrespect for the value of creativity.
I don't know what you mean by "in relation to computers". Music simply put does not meet the criteria for any definition of information I could find.
And I dispute your claim that "information is free". Firstly, it is certainly possible to build draconian measures to make it difficult to distribute copyrighted works, it's just a matter of making the measures sufficiently draconian that they're impossible to circumvent. However, most authors of copyrighted works have found that at a certain point, it's more profitable to have faith in the common decency of the user base.
Secondly, just because it's easy to commit immoral acts does not make it right. There are many immoral behaviours, some legal, and some not, that cannot be justified by the fact that it's easy, and convenient to commit them. Do not mistake expediency for righteousness.
Thirdly, the fact that something is "out in the open" does not mean that it's free.
Don't pretend that piracy is about the "free flow of ideas". You are confusing copyrights with patents. The riff from a Metallica album is an "idea", and I am free to give you a full transcription of any riff from any metallica album. *However*, the music itself is an instance of that riff, which is a very different thing. The people who talk about "information" wanting to be free are not asking for the information in question -- they are simply sticking their hands into the artists pocket. Your notion that everything is somehow intrinsically "public domain" because of technology just doesn't fly -- just because it's easy to cheat doesn't make it right. The fact that you can easily circumvent an artists primary means of compensation does not justify that behaviour.
Let's not pretend for a moment that there is anything "peaceful" about what is in fact a large scale attempt to circumvent the artists primary means of compensation. There is nothing "peaceful" about dispossesion. What we have here is an unruly mob who commit their acts of dishonesty by stealth, and then claim that their acts are somehow "peaceful" by virtue of their stealth. To me, it seems that their acts are "peaceful" in the same way that a cat burgalar is "peaceful". Sure, the law is not a moral absolute, but "information wants to be free" is certainly not a moral absolute either -- actually, it's usually used as a justification for freeloading. BTW, look up "information" in a dictionary. Music does not really qualify.
I am not even going to address your garden analogy, other than to point out that analogies are great if you don't have a real argument. A piece of music is not a garden, and it does not immediately follow that what is ( or isn't ) true for arguments somehow applies to music.
Why is it that everytime the consumer (working poor) gets the edge it's wrong,
What do you mean by "get the edge" ? It's only wrong if they conduct themselves dishonestly. Sure, Bill Gates makes an easy whipping boy, but Bill Gates is not the only one who gets screwed by pirates. The truth is that the warez crowd don't really care who gets screwed, as long as they get something for nothing. As for the rest of your post, it is not coherent and as such, I don't really understand your point.
It serves no purpose to society but to sate the unwholesome appetites of certain elements of the male population who, for whatever reason, cannot find themselves a woman to marry.
You don't need to be unmarried to view porn.
Pornography is degrading to both men and women.
How so ? I consider your patronising attitude towards those that are "exploited" to be degrading.
A true man has no need to look at glossy pictures of naked women, they are quite capable of finding themselves a real woman.
Are you arguing (1) that anyone who is single is not a "true man" ? Where does the bible suggest this ? Your bigotry is disgusting. There are many perfectly decent men ( even christians !!! ) who have some difficulty finding a partner.
Women are exploited in these magazines with both the promise of money
Well it's a promise that is met, almost all the mags do pay up. Why are you so outraged by this "exploitation" ? They actually get good money for it, they are not "victims", and most of them would consider your attitude both chauvanistic and patronising. Do you own any clothing made in China ? There is real exploitation taking place in the world, workers locked in factories, etc, and while all this happens, you are more concerned about the "dirty pictures" stuff.
It is a symptom of the moral decay of modern society that the pornography business has become so huge.
No, it's a symptom of technology. Before then, we had prostitution, and that is not only a large industry but a very old one, and it thrived even in the "morally correct" victorian era. You can strike out the industry, but like it or not, "god" gave us sexual desires and industry or no industry, they won't go away.
Sin is the act of doing something that is not the Lord's work. Nothing you do in the name of the Lord can be a sin.
"WItches" were publically burned in the "name of the lord". The spanish inquisition was conducted "in the name of the lord". Arabs were slaughtered in "the name of the lord".
While you sanction such attrocities, you go purple in the face at such "moral outrages" as women being paid first-world wages to pose in "dirty pictures".
You are truly a hateful and sick man, and I bet god is embarrassed to have you misrepresenting him. If it weren't for his infinite mercy, he'd sue you for defamation.
hen unless you can be turned to the path of righteousness, your soul is lost to us, and you are of the Enemy.
Your path sounds more like one of self righteous and a zealousness about imposing your will on others.
Remember this - one day you will be found wanting and will suffer the consequences of your filthy behaviour.
And you'll just be grinning like a cheshire cat when he "suffers" and receives "the wrath of god" ? Yeah, that'd be right. You are full of hatred and spite for those who protest when you try to impose your will on them. I would rather be called a "satanist" than to be as full of bile as you seem to be.
What, so you can come round and spread your Satan-loving perversions t
I challenge you to show us where he claims to love satan
Your "Christianity" is like pick 'n' mix
AFAICT, your "Christianity" is just a front for bigotory and the desire to impose your will on others. 99% of the BS you spout has little to do with the scriptures.
Only by taking a stance against the Devil are you assured a place with our Lord in Heaven.
What a load of crap. This is a perfect example of you simply spinning shit that is not supported by anything in the bible. Again, I put it to you that you are simply using christianity as a front to impose your will on others. Christianity is supposed to be about a relationship with god, not about making a protest march against "satan".
Are you trying to argue that wet dreams didn't happen prior to the widespread availability of porn , in the 60s or so ? Nope -0- people have been having wet dreams for thousands of years. I suppose it was the witches, huh ? (-;
The record companies make *more* than $5 on a $16 sale.
If you mean that they make $5- revenue per sale, I believe you -- but it doesn't really prove anything or make any point. Revenue is meaningless if you're not making a profit ( and in their case, they really need a profit per sale ). All it really proves is that the record companies have either high operating costs or high profits or both. If you were to divide the reported annual earnings by the CD sales ( ie profit per sale ), the number would be a lot less. BTW, If you're saying that they have $5- earnings per CD sale, I just don't believe you.
here's also my personal experience that might help slake your thirst for knowledge. My band's CD's cost us, at most, and in small, expensive lots, about $2.50 to press, including a crappy little lyric sheet insert in four colors. The majors press millions for about $0.80 a copy, tops.
I know how much it costs to press. But you're being awfully naive if you think that pressing records accounts for the record companie's entire operating expenses.
"Try before you buy" is not an inalienable right, it's something that many companies offer to their customers in enlightened self-interest. It's not for you to forcefully take something from the supplier because you think it's in their interests for them to give it to you.
The reason why the RIAA is pissed is quite obvious -- it's the same reason that the software industry is pissed about warez.
I don't understand this.. the artists work countless hours makin their music, then the editors/sound producers work their hours.. a lot of work goes into the publicity.. and a lot of money too.. in the end.. an individual buys a new cd for $16-$18 (go to any CD store in new jersey).. how much profit did the Recording company make from that one sale ? atleast $5..
Do you have a source for your $5- figure ? Thought not. You are using ficticious data as a foundation for an attack. I find it very hard to believe that most record companies record annual earnings of $5 x the number of CDs they sell. It may not have occured to you, but they do have these things called "operating costs".
in a country where the average yearly income is 40k, how can these suits justify making $5 million from a few months worth of work ?
Why ? Because CEOs usually get paid more. Because the record industry needs to offer competitive salaries to their executives.
didn't Joe construction worker spend so much of his time to build the studio in which the band made it's recording ? how much money went to him ? NONE.. >
This is a flat out lie. Joe was paid a salary, and that salary is directly or otherwise one of the many operating expenseses ( which you seem to have ignored ) of the record company
don't we have a right to know why we're being charged so much for a music cd ?
What does "charged so much" mean ? Why do automoblies "cost so much" ? Why does food "cost so much" ? What does "cost so much" mean ? Many of these companies are publically traded -- the publically traded companies have to release quite a lot of information. You can probably obtain their shareholders report or something similar if you really want to know.
and i've looked in the wrong place..
L:ooking on slashdot for information ? Yeah, you've definitely come to the wrong place.
But I'll use computers as a better analogy in this instance
An analogy is not an argument. Your analogy not only doesn't make your point, and is severely flawed. Of course you don't mind that someone copies your computer, provided that you don't lose income as a result
A better "analogy" would be theft of services. The services may not be tangible ( and it might in some cases be difficult to argue that the service provider actually "lost" anything ) but that doesn't justify stealing them.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, I just disagree. When I was in high school, I listened to all the jazz classics, and they were all at the public library. They also had all kinds of way-out genres of music. I don't think radio is that limited. Many radio stations, using something rather similar to this "street performer" thing you are so fond of, are able to offer a broad range of music. If there was a dearth of good member supported stations, this would IMO be strong evidence that the "street performer" model doesn't work. BUt IMO it works pretty well for radio stations.
b) The infrastructure that will be in place in one or two years will be capable of streaming music into homes for a low monthly fee.
Maybe for upper/middle class Americans who live near the city, yes. For most people, it won't be.
And the problem with allowing the scientist to copyright his discovery is that it will increase the number of people who will be bald and have scales on their faces.
Simply put, NONSENSE. Anyone can write a review of the article that the scientist publishes. Of course, if they invent a cure for something and patent their invention, then that's a different thing altogether. But copyright itself does not impede "the flow of information", it simply impedes plagiarism. I am not violating a copyright by reviewing or summarising the findings of a copyrighted work. BTW, scientific articles are usually copyrighted to the journal in which they are published or the author.
It is better than not for the scientist for him to be able to extort a price based on the utility of his discovery (rather than the cost), but he is in no way entitled to this.
You are talking nonsense. Copyright does not enable him to extort a damn thing. Anyone can read his paper until they understand the phenomenom, and write their own article and release it to the public. This is not a copyright violation.
It appears that you agree that there is no difference between authorship and other public goods (as you have listed none).
In the example you mention ( a scientific discovery ) there are several differences.
This seems to me to lead to the conclusion that authorship should be encouraged by society by whatever means is most beneficial to society, and that authors have no rights beyond that. Do you agree?
You could argue that all rules should only be made for the benefit of society and noone has any rights beyond that. And maybe that's good enough for the average Marxist, or utilitarian ( who are both concerned primarily with the "good of society", but measure this in different ways ) The problem with this is that it sets the scene for a "tyranny of the majority". So I don't really agree with your point of view. The fact that something might seem "better for society" is not in itself a justification. However, I think that in this case, what is good for authors is by and large good for the public. I consider copyrights to be good for both. Tax-dollar funded music is also good for both, but it's not a replacement for the copyright system IMO. The "street performer" idea is interesting, but in practice it doesn't seem that bands have had success in raising much funds this way. The model does work quite well for public radio though.
Python is not just about a new indentation scheme. It has other nice features -- for example, a decent OO system.
Pike looks interesting, however, its module collection is not as extensive as perls or pythons. AFAICT it doesn't seem to do regular expressions, and lacks some of the data types perl/python have ( such as linked lists ). But it's new and no doubt it will evolve. Still, I don't see a compelling reason to use pike over perl or python.
As for the issue of cramping your style, most style issues boil down to where you put brackets, which is of course a non-issue in python. If you really are consistent, I doubt you'll hate it.
In practice, being forced to indent properly isn't more difficult than being forced to close those brackets. It's a nice clean language, partly because of the whitespace thing.
Of course, I could go on all day, but the only way you will be convinced is if you really gie it a shot. But I came into it like you -- I was sceptical and a big perl fan. I'm still a big perl fan, but python is also pretty cool.
OK, I acknowledge that a deadbeat is different from a thief (-;
Actually, the economics of it are simple enough for everyone to understand. Let's say that authors are, in total, payed the same under the new system as they are now. In that case, people would, on average, spend the same amount of money.
However, they would have access to orders of magnitude more information.
There are already public libraries and radio shows. I doubt that it would make a whole lot of difference.
A person could have every piece of music ever recorded in his personal collection.
(a) The utiity of this would be somewhat limited.
(b) Not really true anyway, because you'd still need to pay for media asnd distribution.
Once again, problems which are impossible for me to address, as you failed to list any of them.
Allow me to spell it out to you -- when you have a self selected sample, you have big problems. I thought this was self-evident. For example, how many people would be prepared to write down on their tax form that they purchased 100 pornographic videos last year ? Basically, what this idea says is "give up your right to privacy or we'll retrench your favourite artist". I think that if you have a lot of people refusing to cooperate, then it is a big problem. Of course, if almost everyone cooperates, it not a big problem. If you ask people to put this kind of data on their tax forms, you'll have a lot of people that will refuse to do so.
In the example with the scientist, typically, they will be funded by a university. This works well for scientists. It also works well for musicians, some of whom are also publically funded ( again, by universities ). However, I don't see why this model need be practised to the exclusion of the copyright system. BTW, with the inventor, what you are forgetting is that they could patent their invention. This is how companies protect their inventions. So in short, there are also systems in place to protect inventors ( I'm not going to discuss their effectiveness ). The difference in this case is that patent protection which is applicable to scientific discoveries is considerably more far-reaching than copyright protection, and if it's abused, it is more of an obstruction than a benefit to inventors. OTOH, copyrights are rather narrow -- it is quite difficult to independently create a work identical to an existing copyright work.
The utility of it greatly decreases, since the main use it has for the author is as a source of income.
If you think my undercutting your prices and beating you in business is "dispossessing" you, then.. well.. then your comments have no place in a capitalist society ;)
You are not competing fairly ! I am making a creative work, AND trying to distribute it, you are merely distributing it ( ie leeching off my creative work ). Do you see the problem with this ??? The problem is precisely that it assigns zero economic worth to the creative process -- the only way to be compensed is by distribution. The artist is doing the "real work", and yet, you are trying to argue that a random distributor is a deserving of compensation as the artist. This I find absurd.
Taxes are not "nothing".
No, they're not. But you'll have one hell of a hard time explaining to the American people why it's in their best interests to pay more taxes. One thing I really don't like about using government funds is that the whole thing would become a political football, and it would be vulnerable to cuts whenever someone who didn't like music got in. The Universities have the same problems nowadays.
Right, and in the face of that sort of competition, CD's would obviously become much cheaper than they are now.
As I said, I don't think that kind of competition is fair, because it completely ignores the fact that the artists contribution, and only recompenses distributors. The artist only receives compensation for their efforts as a distributor, but not as an artist. There's better ways of acheiving the same effect. One is to prevent record distributors from acquiring exclusive distribution rights.
Well, it could obviously be voluntary.
And as such, obviously problematic.
for the reason that you had the option of expending effort on something that is *not* a public good instead.
Well I guess it boils down to whether or not we are serious about creating financial incentives for those who expend effort on what you call a "public good". Copyrights certainly do this. A tax funded system could also do this, but it has a lot of problems -- it's vulnerable to political interference and sudden funding cuts, and the American public are not great fans of tax increases.
If I plant some trees and, through various methods, cut my CO2 emissions in half thus benefitting the entire world, do I have a *right* to payment?
The way I'd look at it is that if you do pollute, you should be penalised financially depending on how much you pollute. Since everyone does it to some degree, the "penalty" should be compensatory as opposed to punitive. It's only fair, you're trashing the public space. Now if you're trashing the public space *less* than everyone else, then I would certainly argue that relative to everyone else, you are entitled to favourable treatment, which means lower taxes.
On a large scale, it does -- because it reduces my creative work to something worthless. My creation is being widley used but I'm not getting payed. Does this not seem unjust ? If you put in a good weeks work, and then the boss only decided to pay you for 4 days work, would you feel like you'd been screwed ?
You're dodging the point about the money analogy not being applicable, but in any case, a software license only applies to people who agree to it.
If the license costs money, and the copier is assisting a lot of people from purchasing the license, then they are involved in the copyright violation. The people who don't buy a license are not entitled to use the software, and the people that copy the software for the benefit of such people are accessories to this breach.
Rather than answer you here, I'll direct you to my previous post, here
Ah yes, freeloader friendly. Sure to be popular on slashdot because you get something for nothing. However, the problem is that once the item can be freely copied, there's no reason to buy it. Someone can just burn "warez" copies that are just as good sound-quality wise. This is why we have copyrights in the first place.
Based on usage
You can't measure usage based on sales ( which will, incidently, be minimal since there's not really an incentive to buy it once you allow copying ). As for this idea of tracking devices, this idea is objectionable from a privacy standpoint. I don't want the feds monitoring my listening habits. This is worse, much worse, than intel's pentium III number thing. This is the kind of breach that the typical slashdotter goes blue in the face about, but I suppose it's alright as long as the end result is that you get something for nothing.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here. As I've mentioned, I believe that this government action is defensive, because the action of illegaly copying is not at all peaceful. Rather, it is aggression by stealth. The stealth element does not make it peaceful. Dispossesing someone is an act of agression whether you do it quietly or loudly.
Money is, really, a type of contract. The reason it can't be copied is that one cannot sign another's name to a contract.
A software license is also a type of contract. Like money, copying restrictions are necessary to make the contract work.
Obviously you know that the purpose of copyright abolition is to make information more freely accessible to people. The less profitable nature of the creation of information is merely a side-effect. Why would I want authors to make less profits?
I think this says it all. You want to disposses the authors of their creative work and give it back to the "comrades". This kind of Marxist rhetoric has its place, but that place is not in a capitalist society.
No, my proposal is that the current solution in place is an action of government, in spite of the fact that it is not treated as such by people such as you
THe SEC regulations are also put their by "acts of government", but this does not mean that they should not be there. I would ask you what you propose in the place of the copyright system. It's not good enough to advocate vanmdalism of the current system if you are not willing or able to come up with viable alternatives.
Actually, I don't. What are you trying to say? That if I don't like the laws, I should move?
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the current system fosters creativity, and your Marxist rhetoric taken to it's extreme does not. I am pointing out that the end result of an application of your ideas are probably not something you or anyone else will want to live with. Sure, in the short term, the rioting masses, like the LA mob, will get a cheap thrill from the fact that they can disposses others. Unfortunately, dispossesing others does not generate creative works, and while you get a short term flood, the long term effect is quite the opposite.
As for you having "the might", sure you do. This further advances my case that your actions are not at all peaceful. You are using your might to disposses others, in much the same way that the LA mob did. You are no more peaceful than the thugs who broke windows and looted stores, even if you have more stealth than them.
That's exactly like something I proposed earlier in this thread (RMS's suggestion)! Go look it up.
I will. I bet that if RMS likes it though, it's a freeloader-friendly idea. Freeloader friendly ideas simply are not viable, because once you allow freeloading, you provide disincentives to pay up, namely "why should I if I don't have to". Unless you fund it through the tax system ( which is the solution to the policing problem you raised earlier )
It limits what two consenting adults can do alone in a vacuum.
If one of the consenting adults is the copyright holder, this is false ( otherwise, the copyright holder could hold out until the other guy pays up ). On the other hand, if neither is, then you are still wrong, because they are not "in a vacuum" -- the copyrighted work is there as well.
I don't see how extending the realm of government subsidies of the arts to popular music would create any more of a problem.
How do we decide who gets funding ? There are definitely problems using this model as a replacement for the copyright system, though I could certainly accept it as a supplement. Ditto for software. I do not object to the existence of such a system, but I certainly object to it being practised to the exclusion of the copyright system.
And I didn't claim that copyright is designed to "make art as profitable as someone wants it". It is designed as a means of having a market place for creative works. As such, it can be only as profitable as the market are willing and able to make it.
I am not clear on how theft always requires force. Entering an open window doesn't require force. Breaking into a car doesn't require any more "force" than circumventing a technological copy protection mechanism. The fact that copyright violaters are more like cat burglars than armed robbers does not make a big difference IMO.
Copy protection is unprecidented.
I am not clear on what you mean by this. However, I'll point out that the question of copyright protection is really only an issue because it's easy to copy nowadays. Before it was easy to copy, it was less of an issue.
It's one thing to protect an asset from being taken, and quite another to prevent it from being copied.
You could say the same about money. The problem is that copying money degrades the currency. Likewise, copying intellectual assets destroys the information economy ie it makes it next to impossible for the authors of creative content to be compensated. This is why we have an "information economy" in the first place.
Well, government-enforced monopoly is not a free market.
The government have a monopoly on printing dollar bills, so you could equally argue that this is not a "free market". The fact that you recognise creative works ( or more precisely, the right to control a creative work ) as having an owner does not violate the definition of free market. It simply broadens the notion of property in such a way as to recognise that creative work does have value and can be sold on the market place.
[irrelevant analogies snipped]
If the "street performer protocol" and other methods are really a more efficient way of doing things, then surely, it should replace the copyright system -- because it will give consumers a better deal without harming the author. However, this is not the case. The truth is that these models make it easy to freeload ( which I take it is precisely why slashdotters argue so passionately for them ) and provide an economic disincentive for anyone to pay up ( namely: "I'll just let someone else pay up, since I can get the product anyway" ). Basically, these "ideas" assign zero value in an economic sense to the production of creative works. This is a problem, and the only viable solution appears to be to create an economic system for creative works, which is essentially what copyright is about.
Why would they? If the government is granting someone privilege, why would they voluntarily surrender it?
At least we agree that the copyright abolitionists are primarily trying to make life less profitable for the authors of creative works.
If everyone on the block combines to form a pool to pay a guard together, it's in my best interests not to join -- they'll pay either way, and I'll get the service either way. Etc. Information fits well into that category. It's a common problem, and the usual solution is government.
I see. So is your proposed solution in this instance "government" ? I think someone else mentioned something like "go move to Havana and listen to the state orchestra" -- kind of blunt, but you get the idea, huh ?
The problem is that with creative works, we really need some kind of market place, so that consumers can vote, instead of the government dictating the terms to consumers. In some sense, the idea of having the government directly control creative content is more of a violation of free market principles than simply saying "we need some kind of economic system to handle creative works" and inventing copyrights.
The very notion of property requires the use of force. The notion of "money" requires laws that forcefully obstruct you from counterfeiting. The fact that force must be used to protect the copyright holder does not mean that there is somehow something "wrong" with copyrights.
As for "nothing wrong with circumventing people's means to compensation", well I don't see how it's substantially different from theft. Circumventing a moral obligation to compense is IMO morally equivalent to outright theft. And yes, if the author wishes to choose the copyright scheme as their means of compensation, then I believe there is a moral obligation to recompense the author as required by the copyright. I think this case is made even stronger by the fact that copyright seems to be the most effective means of distributed payment -- it is the only one in widespread use today.
but to a certain extent we can say that if your occupation couldn't support you on a free market, you have no place complaining when it fails to support you
I don't see how copyrights are an obstruction to a "free market". You could use the same reasoning to argue that laws forbidding counterfeiting are somehow an "obstruction" to the free market. The fact that an asset is intangible does not mean that the law should not recognise and protect it. It seems that some musicians survive well in the free market -- consumers are certainly free to boycott bands that don't use the "street performer protocol", but it seems that consumers are voting for the copyright system in droves, with their wallets.
By the way, I am very glad you raised the notion of free markets. Tell me this -- if the "street performer" thing and all these other freeloader-friendly models are really superior to the copyright model, why haven't they prevailed, when the current law allows copyrights and other models to co-exist ?
Information is a public good.
Copyrighted works are not really "information". And I don't see why they are a "public good". I see this point of view as one step away from simply declaring that "property is a public good". Sure, it's tempting for someone who produces no creative work to claim that creative work is not something that one has the right to receive compensation for. But I think that this viewpoint smacks of an utter disrespect for the value of creativity.
And I dispute your claim that "information is free". Firstly, it is certainly possible to build draconian measures to make it difficult to distribute copyrighted works, it's just a matter of making the measures sufficiently draconian that they're impossible to circumvent. However, most authors of copyrighted works have found that at a certain point, it's more profitable to have faith in the common decency of the user base.
Secondly, just because it's easy to commit immoral acts does not make it right. There are many immoral behaviours, some legal, and some not, that cannot be justified by the fact that it's easy, and convenient to commit them. Do not mistake expediency for righteousness.
Thirdly, the fact that something is "out in the open" does not mean that it's free.
Don't pretend that piracy is about the "free flow of ideas". You are confusing copyrights with patents. The riff from a Metallica album is an "idea", and I am free to give you a full transcription of any riff from any metallica album. *However*, the music itself is an instance of that riff, which is a very different thing. The people who talk about "information" wanting to be free are not asking for the information in question -- they are simply sticking their hands into the artists pocket. Your notion that everything is somehow intrinsically "public domain" because of technology just doesn't fly -- just because it's easy to cheat doesn't make it right. The fact that you can easily circumvent an artists primary means of compensation does not justify that behaviour.
I am not even going to address your garden analogy, other than to point out that analogies are great if you don't have a real argument. A piece of music is not a garden, and it does not immediately follow that what is ( or isn't ) true for arguments somehow applies to music.
What do you mean by "get the edge" ? It's only wrong if they conduct themselves dishonestly. Sure, Bill Gates makes an easy whipping boy, but Bill Gates is not the only one who gets screwed by pirates. The truth is that the warez crowd don't really care who gets screwed, as long as they get something for nothing. As for the rest of your post, it is not coherent and as such, I don't really understand your point.
You don't need to be unmarried to view porn.
Pornography is degrading to both men and women.
How so ? I consider your patronising attitude towards those that are "exploited" to be degrading.
A true man has no need to look at glossy pictures of naked women, they are quite capable of finding themselves a real woman.
Are you arguing
(1) that anyone who is single is not a "true man" ? Where does the bible suggest this ? Your bigotry is disgusting. There are many perfectly decent men ( even christians !!! ) who have some difficulty finding a partner.
Women are exploited in these magazines with both the promise of money
Well it's a promise that is met, almost all the mags do pay up. Why are you so outraged by this "exploitation" ? They actually get good money for it, they are not "victims", and most of them would consider your attitude both chauvanistic and patronising. Do you own any clothing made in China ? There is real exploitation taking place in the world, workers locked in factories, etc, and while all this happens, you are more concerned about the "dirty pictures" stuff.
It is a symptom of the moral decay of modern society that the pornography business has become so huge.
No, it's a symptom of technology. Before then, we had prostitution, and that is not only a large industry but a very old one, and it thrived even in the "morally correct" victorian era. You can strike out the industry, but like it or not, "god" gave us sexual desires and industry or no industry, they won't go away.
"WItches" were publically burned in the "name of the lord". The spanish inquisition was conducted "in the name of the lord". Arabs were slaughtered in "the name of the lord".
While you sanction such attrocities, you go purple in the face at such "moral outrages" as women being paid first-world wages to pose in "dirty pictures".
You are truly a hateful and sick man, and I bet god is embarrassed to have you misrepresenting him. If it weren't for his infinite mercy, he'd sue you for defamation.
Your path sounds more like one of self righteous and a zealousness about imposing your will on others.
Remember this - one day you will be found wanting and will suffer the consequences of your filthy behaviour.
And you'll just be grinning like a cheshire cat when he "suffers" and receives "the wrath of god" ? Yeah, that'd be right. You are full of hatred and spite for those who protest when you try to impose your will on them. I would rather be called a "satanist" than to be as full of bile as you seem to be.
I challenge you to show us where he claims to love satan
Your "Christianity" is like pick 'n' mix
AFAICT, your "Christianity" is just a front for bigotory and the desire to impose your will on others. 99% of the BS you spout has little to do with the scriptures.
Only by taking a stance against the Devil are you assured a place with our Lord in Heaven.
What a load of crap. This is a perfect example of you simply spinning shit that is not supported by anything in the bible. Again, I put it to you that you are simply using christianity as a front to impose your will on others. Christianity is supposed to be about a relationship with god, not about making a protest march against "satan".
If you mean that they make $5- revenue per sale, I believe you -- but it doesn't really prove anything or make any point. Revenue is meaningless if you're not making a profit ( and in their case, they really need a profit per sale ). All it really proves is that the record companies have either high operating costs or high profits or both. If you were to divide the reported annual earnings by the CD sales ( ie profit per sale ), the number would be a lot less. BTW, If you're saying that they have $5- earnings per CD sale, I just don't believe you.
here's also my personal experience that might help slake your thirst for knowledge. My band's CD's cost us, at most, and in small, expensive lots, about $2.50 to press, including a crappy little lyric sheet insert in four colors. The majors press millions for about $0.80 a copy, tops.
I know how much it costs to press. But you're being awfully naive if you think that pressing records accounts for the record companie's entire operating expenses.
The reason why the RIAA is pissed is quite obvious -- it's the same reason that the software industry is pissed about warez.
Do you have a source for your $5- figure ? Thought not. You are using ficticious data as a foundation for an attack. I find it very hard to believe that most record companies record annual earnings of $5 x the number of CDs they sell. It may not have occured to you, but they do have these things called "operating costs".
in a country where the average yearly income is 40k, how can these suits justify making $5 million from a few months worth of work ?
Why ? Because CEOs usually get paid more. Because the record industry needs to offer competitive salaries to their executives.
didn't Joe construction worker spend so much of his time to build the studio in which the band made it's recording ? how much money went to him ? NONE.. >
This is a flat out lie. Joe was paid a salary, and that salary is directly or otherwise one of the many operating expenseses ( which you seem to have ignored ) of the record company
don't we have a right to know why we're being charged so much for a music cd ?
What does "charged so much" mean ? Why do automoblies "cost so much" ? Why does food "cost so much" ? What does "cost so much" mean ? Many of these companies are publically traded -- the publically traded companies have to release quite a lot of information. You can probably obtain their shareholders report or something similar if you really want to know.
and i've looked in the wrong place..
L:ooking on slashdot for information ? Yeah, you've definitely come to the wrong place.
An analogy is not an argument. Your analogy not only doesn't make your point, and is severely flawed. Of course you don't mind that someone copies your computer, provided that you don't lose income as a result
A better "analogy" would be theft of services. The services may not be tangible ( and it might in some cases be difficult to argue that the service provider actually "lost" anything ) but that doesn't justify stealing them.