> I hate to have the unpopular opinion in this > matter, because I too have a decent > collection of MP3s on my drive, but theft is > STILL theft, no matter how much utterly boring > verbiage Katz uses to justify it.
As Katz said in the article...the whole argument breaks down into 2 groups. You obviously see copying as theft. Yes, theft is theft, however in MY viewpoint, and the veiwpoint of several others copying data is NOT theft.
In fact, even according to the law its not "theft" Its not called "stealing" or "theft" its is called "copyright infingement" or "unauthorized copying".
Whether that reduces to theft is not a cut and dry issue, and not everyone agrees with the assemsnent that it is theft.
> Actually, the scenario you describe might be > more likely than one might think.
I know. Actually...with a little looking around a few months back I found anice story. Police in miami or something paid an informant, who was nice and very forthcomming about this nice crack house.
They came in armed to the teeth...when an old lady answered the door, she saw all their guns and screamed. He husband herd the scream and came rushing out of his bedroom with a gun to save her.
Needless to say the man was probably dead before he realized what was going on (much less before he hit the floor). It was a house owned by an old retired couple...no crack found.
Another case police busted into a house looking for drugs, chased a man into the bedroom and shot him, emptied their clips into him. Coroner said that most of the bulletts enterd "at a downwards angle through his back" (ie he was laying on the floor dead).
No drugs were found. The man was unarmed. The police were not punished.
So, all in all, I don't think this remote controlling military gear is too much of a worry. Frankly....there are worst things that should keep you up nights.
nah...you should be more afraid of police dressed up in military gear busting down your door and shooting you because you moved too fast and "they were scared" on the word of a junkie paid informant who told them you were running a crack house.
> If we really wanted to be of some help to the > CyberPatrol customers (e.g. parents), we could > take down all of our mirrors, and replace them > with mirrors of the article that do not contain > executables
Interesting idea but...then customers wouldn't be able to see the blocked list anymore. They also wouldn't be able to check the veracity of the information with thier own copies.
What if "we" want to help customers of cyberpatrol by enabling them to see what the product they have is actually doing (which IMNSHO is their right no matter what any lawyer says)
> Well, probably A is covered by paying upwards of > $20k over 2-3 years - if that's > not a form intent, then what is?
What I had in mind, maybe I didn't specify well. I think that if patents exist then anyone with a patentable whatever should be able to get a patent...so $20/k for 2-3 years sounds like a very high "bar" to get over.
What I would like to see is that if a company has no intention to use a patent for something other than legal bullying, then they should either not get the patent, or lose their patent.
> B) Right now it appears 17 or 20 years is > considered the appropriate amount of time.
I personally think it is too long. Of course perhaps 17 years would be a good maximum if A was implimented (ie...a company shouldn't be able to stop producing a product, and then use its patent power to force others to pay up. if the current holder has no intention to use the patent for other than bullying...they should lose it)
C) I did not know that. Very good to know.
> D) - Isn't this just commercial good sense?
In some way. Again,...the goal of my idea was to think of a system where a patent does what it needs to, and doesn't function as a club to beat people around with. \
of course as I said...I dislike patents anyway. I generally think that recognizing a good idea, then taking it and applying it where you need it is a "Good thing" and patents seem like a device to get in the way of people using good ideas.
Well personally I would rather abolish patents alltogether...however...perhaps a slightly more complex system:
Certainly I think software patents are just plain wrong. Especially ones dealing with encryption (you could easily break some patents with a pencil and paper).
Here are a few things that would make patents much less diagreeable:
A) Applicant must show intent to actually use the patent (ie actually produce what is being patented or use it in a real product). Alteratly, perhaps an applicant may be granted a temporary (1 year) patent which will become a real patent after the current holder (applicant or someone it was sold to) shows intent to use it. (sueing people alone should NOT count as "use")
B) Patents should be granted for "an apropriate amount of time". It should be determined by what it is and what feild it is for. example: when IBM applies for a hard drive technology patent...how long after the patent is filed, on average, does it take before they can actually deploy it in a real product? A 3 year patent isn't very good if it takes 2 years to actually finish and get a woking product out the door.
C) After the USPTO has made a preliminary reuling to allow a patent...for a period of 3-6 months the patent should be made publically avilable...and a period should begin where the public are allowed to submit prior art etc for consideration.
D) Submarine patents. If a company can show that they were using a technology before the patent was actually issued (but after its development by the patent holder - ie they didn't read the application or copy the idea) then they should NOT be fully responsible. In fact...the patent holder should be forced to give them a compulsory licence to the technology (ie he can't refuse it and shut them down) for a reasonable royalty, of FUTURE moneies (ie he should have no claim to the money from before the infringer knew about the patent) [btw the idea of a compulsory licence does exist in copyright law...you can distribute copies of music without obtaining any permission legally... but you MUST follow specific procedure and pay royalties]
> Well, of course, there are always two possibly > different value systems operating: > one is your own personal morals, and one is the > set of current laws.
Certainly....one of my personal beliefs is that the entire system of law and government is about as valuable as a steaming heap of dung.
> (1) Your beliefs do not impose any obligations > on me -- what I should or should not do;
Of course. Yet by the same token I just ask for the same respect (unfortunaly the big uniformed men with guns who call themselves the government feel they have the right to impose their belifs on me...particularly their belief that they have the authority to tell me what to do...and furthermore that authority exists)
> (2) Your actions in real world are still subject > to current laws, regardless of your beliefs.
Only if you are caught. Which, truthfully doesn't happen much. I exceede posted speed limits at least 2 times a day every day. I have never been ticketed. I have smoked pot probably a hundred times in my life...purchased it probably 10 times. I have never been caught doing any of these things...therefore I have to say that my actions are not subject to law unless I am caught. (especially when you factor in that at least the purchase of certain substances implies technically illegal action by at least 3-4 others (producer, distributor etc) who also did not get caught at that time either...)
> One more thing that you might want to think > about is the freedom of contract.
This scenario you describe is flawed. This "Freedom" to restric another via contract only exists if there is someone who can enforce this restriction. As such...the restriction of a contract is actually a threat of force. (ie If you break this I will have have men with guns force you to do things (ie pay restitution etc)) As such I would not classify this as a freedom.
I do however recognize a freedom of people to freely associate themselves with eachother and enter into any agreements that they wish, between themselves...so I supose yes.
> So unless you want to make a law forbidding any > restrictions on information,
Why is it that law is always considered the most important source of rules? I much prefer to follow my own sense of morality than some old rich authoritarian mans rules.
Given the plethora of laws that a person can break in a single day, and continue to break every day, without ever being prosecuted, I think that talking about law as if its important "because its the law" is fairly silly.
The laws that you really can't get away with breaking too easily (stealing, murder etc) are generally fairly deplorable and not morally justifiable anyway.
> How about reputational rights? I wrote a song, > can anybody take it and claim *they* wrote it?
Claiming that they wrote it would be fraud. Not because I wrote it but because they didn't. Thus they are telling a lie.
> How about more reputational rights? I wrote an > opinion piece, somebody took it, inserted "And, > by the way, Adolf Hitler was the greatest man of > the XX century"
Again...they are commiting fraud in my eyes. A lie, claiming that you wrote something that you didn't.
I don't see how one needs the concept of "IP" to see the wrongdoing in either of these cases.
And also...I am NOT mixing up patents and copyright...I think they are both equally absurd.
I just can't delude myself into believeing that when a person makes a copy of a musical piece and shares it with a friend, that they have commited some horrid offence. Its just not "stealing", its "Shareing". (thats not to say that I activly go around copying CDs...I have more important things to do with my time... like write code)
I dunno about anyone else, but when I write something, or come up with an idea, it is for use. I don't see how I could possibly gain anything by stoping people from using, coping, or distributing anything I make. If what I do can benefit someone, either practically (like a piece of software) or emotionally (music, art) then I should be glad that it benefits them and that they use it.
> My thoughts, dreams, ideas, etc. exist only in > my mind. Yet I am quite convinced I "own" them
Do you claim the right to not allow others to have the same or similar thoughts?
If you express your thoughts to someone else... are they allowed to think them too?
> Besided, consider this. You go to a fine > restaurant and pay a sum of money -- for what?
Usually so I don't have to cook. or to put off grocery shopping for another day.
> You come to a good restaurant for the *taste* > of food and for the atmosphere. Both of these > are intangibles -- they exist only in the human > mind.
No restraunt claims the right to stop you from copying their ideas and cooking the same food at home for your friends, or even from opening your own restraunt and cooking dishes that are similar or the same as their own.
I am not saying it is wrong to charge for goods and labor...I am saying that information is not in and of itself property in my eyes.
Certainly you have the right to NOT express thoughts of your own, or not release information to others. However, I do not recognize any right beyond that.
Its like this;
If I lend my friend my car, with the intent that HE drive it soemehwer...then he lets other people drive my car...that is a problem. It is real property of mine that he and noone else have been given permission to drive.
On the other hand...if I hand him a CD of music that I created...and he makes a copy for a friend then I still have my copy. Nothing has happend to my property. My property is the CD itself not the sound on it.
> Well as far as copyrights are concerned, the > second you record any song or WRITE DOWN any > lyrics, they are copyrighted. This applies to > all forms of recording including digital.
Very true from a stricly legalist viewpoint. However this isn't the question of "From the court of law point of view, who owns words and notes?"
Personally....my answer would be that nobody owns them, and everyone is free to use them. However, thats not as popular of an opion as it could be, and it disagrees strongly with the current establishment.
I find the idea absurd that a person can own something which doesn't exist outside of the human mind.
Music is nothing more than vibration of air. Music does not exist on a tape, or on my hard drive. Music exists in my mind. It is an interpretation of data. Outside of the human mind, writting, words, music are all meaningless.
To claim ownership of any of these things is to claim to own nothing more than a human percieved and interpreted pattern of information.
of course...those are just my offtopic views in an offtopic conversation.:)
> As far as stability goes, it doesn't matter. > Linux will crash just as bad as Windows or > Powerbooks will
I agree...it does happen. I have had Linux systems lock up and crash etc. However....they are still a hundred times more stable than just about anything else I have used (including many comercial unicies - there are a couple that have been on par though).
So yea...my system crashes on the order of once every other month or so...my workstation at work does somewhat better.
When you consider the average windows machine crashes on the order of several times a week or on some...several times a day...
> Digital Audio is still damn tricky.
the mantra is "User Aps can't crash the system" (not always true sadly...)
> I believe that Intellectual works aren't > abundant, since there's a scarcity of skill & > talent in the world.
I tend to disagree. Information is a resource which, once created, can be multiplied enough for everyone at almost zero cost. Perhaps there is scarcity of new information, as talented people are needed to create it...but...once created, any scarcity of that information is completely artifical.
> Communism is responsible for more crimes than > any other political movement in the history of > the 20th century.
Like what exactly? Or are we attributing the atrocities of every iron fisted dictator who ever decided to call himself communist to communism itself?
I supose then we should say that christianity is evil because some people who call themselves christian have committed atrocities?
> The horrors of Nazi Germany that still terrify > most of the western world were derrived from the > "Big Brother" - and who is that but the Friend > and the Teacher, Josef Jugashvili-Stalin.
A) NAZIs are National Socialists. They were not communists, and one of the tenents of communism is not "persecute and murder anyone who oposes you"
B) Stalin was a totalitarian dictator not a communist.
He called himself a communist, thats just because it is popular. Many fascist politicans in this country call themselves liberal or conservative. Not because they know what the word means or would agree with a real liberal or conservative if they met one...just cuz its "in style".
> You don't think our ancestors could afford to > share the dead carcases of animals with others?
Do you think that early humans didn't share with their fellow man, at least within their communal groups?
> Little babies are greedy too. Try having your > average 2 year old share.
A two year old has already learned ALOT from his fammily. Remember...at age 0 a baby starts with almost nothing...very little in the way of instincs. It takes many 2 years before they even learn to speak in simple sentances. Even motor control of most muscles is still being learned.
2 years is plenty of time for them to start picking up on behaviours and pattenrs of things.
> Communism is a political theory that posits a > series of inevitable revolutions of the working > class, each time resulting in a fairer society > until you finally get to a completely fair > communist state.
A) Actually Marxist Communism does...not communism in general
B) Very good point. Marx was not advocating that violent overthrow happen...he was stating his belief that this was the inevitable result of class strugle. Not that it SHOULD happen but that it WOULD happen.
Anyone who has read the communist manifesto should be able to see that clearly, he believed that all of history so far has been the history of class strugle (the thesis of the document actually) and that the inevitable result is a classless system.
> Karl Marx postulated the dictatorship of the > proletariat, as well as the necessity of a > violent overthrow of the capitalist system. > The ideology of communism and socialism has > been violent from the start
Marx is not the be all and end all of communism. He wasn't even the start of communism. Marx was more of a Communist philosopher/realist than the previous philosophers.
In fact his advocacy of violent overthow was partially a reaction to other philosophers who he saw as silly, as they advocated just starting nice little utopian communist communities (ie communes) and showing the world by example how it would work.
> As long as an ideology doesn't advocate violence > as the primary means to an end, I believe > such people should have the "freedom to" do > whatever they wish.
However...your capitalist/republic system has violence inherent in it. Where does law get its force? What makes the old men, senators and congressmen any diffent from a bunch of grandfathers sitting in a lodge talking about how the world should be?
The difference: men with guns.
What is a law? A law is nothing more than a threat the threat that "If you do (or don't do) X then men with guns will visit violence upon you" (I call locking a person up in a cell a pretty damned violent act)
The threat of violence, and the use of violence are the foundations of the system. What makes the current system's violence "justified" and that of anothers ideals not? Was the constitution handed down to George Washington by God himself? Is it now a devine document specifing thegreater law of the universe?
In essence the government, any government, is no differnt then a bunch of armed thugs. Sure...we can "Vote" to change who the thugs are...we can even somewhat influcnce what they do by threatening to replace them...in the end they are still abunch of corrupt armed thugs.
> The question is not that "I want more than you", > it's that "I want something, but there's not > enough to go around". Hence we use a market to > allocate resources
Which sounds great as you explain it...but... what about when there is plenty to go around?
We apply the "market" idea to everything, regardless of scarcity.
Personally...I don't think money is all that great of a motivating factor. Those who are highly motivated by money. People are much more motivated by a desire to be productive and fullfill their basic needs of food, shelter etc.
> It is not an "IDEA" or a sound - it is a song. > It is a unique, non-obvious construction built > from basic materials (pitch, harmony, rhythm). > The basic materials are not IP, but the final > construction is.
This is where we have our fundamental disagreement
I do not believe in intellectual property. The very notion that something that is purely intellectual...something like an idea, or a set of sounds that weave into the rich tapestry of a song can be "property" and "owned".
I realize that this is a common idea...one that alot of peole like (or at least accept). However it just doesn't jive for me. The entire concept of "information as peoperty" seems very unnatural and just plain wrong.
I realize that the concept of IP was invented for good reasons...and had very good intentions. Making sure artists have incentive to work. Thats great...increace the amount of art in the world. Very nobel goals. However, just because the goals are nobel, doesn't make the means correct.
The very idea that i can have a music CD, I can play it...but I can't copy a song for a friend who likes it, because it is "morally wrong" is just so absurd to me. The idea that I can't share the information on a CD or my hard drive because "I don't OWN the information, just the hardware" is absurd to me.
Lois de Brandice (whose name I probably just murderd) said "If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable". I am sorry, but any law that would state that "You can own the physical media, and not own whats on the media...and can't share whats on it with friends, or do whatever else you want with it" is just too absurd to be respectable.
Of course...thats just my viewpoint. I realise that my view is in the minority in many cases. Copyright was a great idea 200 years ago. I think it is quite outdated and I would not weap a tear to see it go away completely. I realize that wont happen very soon...but I will certainly be out here trying to spread my dissenting opionion to try to get my concept to infect enough minds to destroy the currently dominent concepts.
> In order to have a decent crack at the higher > education whip, a person would have to:
> Give up their job, or significantly reduce the > number of hours they work,
So noone has ever worked a full time job to put themselves through school? Somehow I doubt that.
Hell I have no degree...because I work at a University I can take 2 free courses per semester. I could get a degree...in 8 years or so.
It may take longer...but work and education do not have to be mutually exlusive.
> In this case, potentially have to invest in > computer hardware
One could argue that to get into a real university you have to put in the inital investment of 4 years in high school (not true...my sister spent 1.5 years in HS...left and got her GED, then went into colledge 2 years early)
Yea...its an inital investemtn that has to be made to be able to do it...however...given the cost of normal universities...this is a very low enty investment. Besides...would you really go off to a real university without a computer these days? Would you want to be subject to working on papers whenever a PC is free in the lab or when the computer labs are open?
Seriously...I was a school for a year a few years back (school life wasn't for me...I learn better off on my own doing things then in classrooms) and I knew 1 person without a computer of his own.
> Encourage everything currently considered > cheating: collaborative work (via instant > messengers, internet phone, IRC, whatever), use > of reference materials, everything. This is > good real life training anyway: you always > collaborate with people to get things done.
I have to agree here. Definitly.
I would rather work with someone who is willing to admit that they don't know everything and look up or ask about what they don't know, then someone who feels the need to just know everything.
Real work is like that. If you don't know...you ask. People collaberate. In fact....discussing a problem with someone else is a great way to learn more.
As for reference material....as Einsein said... "Never memorize anything that you can look up".
Actually...I have had tests even in high school where we were encouraged to bring our notes to the test. Its more important that we know how to work through a problem then we know formulas by heart.
Perhaps a University Sanctioned chat line where people could IM etc...and it could be reviewed by a TA or equiv. Just to make sure people were discussing problems and not just saying : 1a 2b etc.
Slashdot Mirror
> I hate to have the unpopular opinion in this
> matter, because I too have a decent
> collection of MP3s on my drive, but theft is
> STILL theft, no matter how much utterly boring
> verbiage Katz uses to justify it.
As Katz said in the article...the whole argument
breaks down into 2 groups. You obviously see
copying as theft. Yes, theft is theft, however in
MY viewpoint, and the veiwpoint of several others
copying data is NOT theft.
In fact, even according to the law its not "theft"
Its not called "stealing" or "theft" its is called
"copyright infingement" or "unauthorized copying".
Whether that reduces to theft is not a cut
and dry issue, and not everyone agrees with the
assemsnent that it is theft.
> Actually, the scenario you describe might be
> more likely than one might think.
I know. Actually...with a little looking around
a few months back I found anice story. Police in
miami or something paid an informant, who was nice
and very forthcomming about this nice crack house.
They came in armed to the teeth...when an old
lady answered the door, she saw all their guns and
screamed. He husband herd the scream and came
rushing out of his bedroom with a gun to save her.
Needless to say the man was probably dead before
he realized what was going on (much less before
he hit the floor). It was a house owned by an old
retired couple...no crack found.
Another case police busted into a house looking
for drugs, chased a man into the bedroom and
shot him, emptied their clips into him. Coroner
said that most of the bulletts enterd "at a
downwards angle through his back" (ie he was
laying on the floor dead).
No drugs were found. The man was unarmed. The
police were not punished.
So, all in all, I don't think this remote
controlling military gear is too much of a worry.
Frankly....there are worst things that should
keep you up nights.
Highly unlikely scenario....
nah...you should be more afraid of police dressed
up in military gear busting down your door and
shooting you because you moved too fast and
"they were scared" on the word of a junkie paid
informant who told them you were running a crack
house.
(oh wait...that never happens...oops)
Its sort of ironic to see mention of "in dash
DVD players" when about an hour ago a friend of
mine called me on the phone to vent about his
problem...
Today some hooligan threw a brick through his
car window and stole his CD player while he was
at an apointment.
Yes, I would imagine in dash CD players can be a
very bad idea.
> If we really wanted to be of some help to the
> CyberPatrol customers (e.g. parents), we could
> take down all of our mirrors, and replace them
> with mirrors of the article that do not contain
> executables
Interesting idea but...then customers wouldn't
be able to see the blocked list anymore. They
also wouldn't be able to check the veracity of
the information with thier own copies.
What if "we" want to help customers of cyberpatrol
by enabling them to see what the product they
have is actually doing (which IMNSHO is their
right no matter what any lawyer says)
> Well, probably A is covered by paying upwards of
> $20k over 2-3 years - if that's
> not a form intent, then what is?
What I had in mind, maybe I didn't specify well.
I think that if patents exist then anyone with
a patentable whatever should be able to get a
patent...so $20/k for 2-3 years sounds like a
very high "bar" to get over.
What I would like to see is that if a company has
no intention to use a patent for something other
than legal bullying, then they should either
not get the patent, or lose their patent.
> B) Right now it appears 17 or 20 years is
> considered the appropriate amount of time.
I personally think it is too long. Of course
perhaps 17 years would be a good maximum if
A was implimented (ie...a company shouldn't
be able to stop producing a product, and then
use its patent power to force others to pay up.
if the current holder has no intention to use
the patent for other than bullying...they should
lose it)
C) I did not know that. Very good to know.
> D) - Isn't this just commercial good sense?
In some way. Again,...the goal of my idea was to
think of a system where a patent does what it
needs to, and doesn't function as a club to
beat people around with. \
of course as I said...I dislike patents anyway.
I generally think that recognizing a good idea,
then taking it and applying it where you need
it is a "Good thing" and patents seem like a
device to get in the way of people using good
ideas.
Well personally I would rather abolish patents
alltogether...however...perhaps a slightly more
complex system:
Certainly I think software patents are just plain
wrong. Especially ones dealing with encryption
(you could easily break some patents with a
pencil and paper).
Here are a few things that would make patents
much less diagreeable:
A) Applicant must show intent to actually use
the patent (ie actually produce what is being
patented or use it in a real product). Alteratly,
perhaps an applicant may be granted a temporary
(1 year) patent which will become a real patent
after the current holder (applicant or someone it
was sold to) shows intent to use it.
(sueing people alone should NOT count as "use")
B) Patents should be granted for "an apropriate
amount of time". It should be determined by what
it is and what feild it is for. example: when IBM
applies for a hard drive technology patent...how
long after the patent is filed, on average, does
it take before they can actually deploy it in
a real product? A 3 year patent isn't very
good if it takes 2 years to actually finish and
get a woking product out the door.
C) After the USPTO has made a preliminary reuling
to allow a patent...for a period of 3-6 months
the patent should be made publically
avilable...and a period should begin where the
public are allowed to submit prior art etc
for consideration.
D) Submarine patents. If a company can show that
they were using a technology before the patent
was actually issued (but after its development
by the patent holder - ie they didn't read the
application or copy the idea) then they should
NOT be fully responsible. In fact...the patent
holder should be forced to give them a compulsory
licence to the technology (ie he can't refuse it
and shut them down) for a reasonable royalty, of
FUTURE moneies (ie he should have no claim to
the money from before the infringer knew about
the patent)
[btw the idea of a compulsory licence does exist
in copyright law...you can distribute copies of
music without obtaining any permission legally...
but you MUST follow specific procedure and pay
royalties]
Just my thoughts....any others?
-Steve
> Well, of course, there are always two possibly
> different value systems operating:
> one is your own personal morals, and one is the
> set of current laws.
Certainly....one of my personal beliefs is that
the entire system of law and government is about
as valuable as a steaming heap of dung.
> (1) Your beliefs do not impose any obligations
> on me -- what I should or should not do;
Of course. Yet by the same token I just ask for
the same respect (unfortunaly the big uniformed
men with guns who call themselves the government
feel they have the right to impose their belifs
on me...particularly their belief that they have
the authority to tell me what to do...and
furthermore that authority exists)
> (2) Your actions in real world are still subject
> to current laws, regardless of your beliefs.
Only if you are caught. Which, truthfully doesn't
happen much. I exceede posted speed limits
at least 2 times a day every day. I have never
been ticketed. I have smoked pot probably a
hundred times in my life...purchased it probably
10 times. I have never been caught doing any of
these things...therefore I have to say that my
actions are not subject to law unless I am
caught.
(especially when you factor in that at least the
purchase of certain substances implies technically
illegal action by at least 3-4 others (producer,
distributor etc) who also did not get caught
at that time either...)
> One more thing that you might want to think
> about is the freedom of contract.
This scenario you describe is flawed. This
"Freedom" to restric another via contract only
exists if there is someone who can enforce this
restriction. As such...the restriction of a
contract is actually a threat of force.
(ie If you break this I will have have men with
guns force you to do things (ie pay restitution
etc))
As such I would not classify this as a freedom.
I do however recognize a freedom of people to
freely associate themselves with eachother and
enter into any agreements that they wish, between
themselves...so I supose yes.
> So unless you want to make a law forbidding any
> restrictions on information,
Why is it that law is always considered the most
important source of rules? I much prefer to
follow my own sense of morality than some old
rich authoritarian mans rules.
Given the plethora of laws that a person can break
in a single day, and continue to break every day,
without ever being prosecuted, I think that
talking about law as if its important "because its
the law" is fairly silly.
The laws that you really can't get away with
breaking too easily (stealing, murder etc) are
generally fairly deplorable and not morally
justifiable anyway.
> How about reputational rights? I wrote a song,
> can anybody take it and claim *they* wrote it?
Claiming that they wrote it would be fraud. Not
because I wrote it but because they didn't. Thus
they are telling a lie.
> How about more reputational rights? I wrote an
> opinion piece, somebody took it, inserted "And,
> by the way, Adolf Hitler was the greatest man of
> the XX century"
Again...they are commiting fraud in my eyes. A
lie, claiming that you wrote something that you
didn't.
I don't see how one needs the concept of "IP" to
see the wrongdoing in either of these cases.
And also...I am NOT mixing up patents and
copyright...I think they are both equally
absurd.
I just can't delude myself into believeing that
when a person makes a copy of a musical piece
and shares it with a friend, that they have commited some horrid offence. Its just not
"stealing", its "Shareing". (thats not to
say that I activly go around copying CDs...I
have more important things to do with my time...
like write code)
I dunno about anyone else, but when I write
something, or come up with an idea, it is for
use. I don't see how I could possibly gain
anything by stoping people from using, coping,
or distributing anything I make. If what I do
can benefit someone, either practically (like
a piece of software) or emotionally (music, art)
then I should be glad that it benefits them and
that they use it.
> My thoughts, dreams, ideas, etc. exist only in
> my mind. Yet I am quite convinced I "own" them
Do you claim the right to not allow others to
have the same or similar thoughts?
If you express your thoughts to someone else...
are they allowed to think them too?
> Besided, consider this. You go to a fine
> restaurant and pay a sum of money -- for what?
Usually so I don't have to cook.
or to put off grocery shopping for another
day.
> You come to a good restaurant for the *taste*
> of food and for the atmosphere. Both of these
> are intangibles -- they exist only in the human
> mind.
No restraunt claims the right to stop you from
copying their ideas and cooking the same food
at home for your friends, or even from opening
your own restraunt and cooking dishes that are
similar or the same as their own.
I am not saying it is wrong to charge for goods
and labor...I am saying that information is not
in and of itself property in my eyes.
Certainly you have the right to NOT express
thoughts of your own, or not release information
to others. However, I do not recognize any right
beyond that.
Its like this;
If I lend my friend my car, with the intent that
HE drive it soemehwer...then he lets other people
drive my car...that is a problem. It is real
property of mine that he and noone else have
been given permission to drive.
On the other hand...if I hand him a CD of music
that I created...and he makes a copy for a friend
then I still have my copy. Nothing has happend
to my property. My property is the CD itself not
the sound on it.
>> who owns words? who owns notes?
:)
> Well as far as copyrights are concerned, the
> second you record any song or WRITE DOWN any
> lyrics, they are copyrighted. This applies to
> all forms of recording including digital.
Very true from a stricly legalist viewpoint.
However this isn't the question of "From the
court of law point of view, who owns words and
notes?"
Personally....my answer would be that nobody owns
them, and everyone is free to use them. However,
thats not as popular of an opion as it could be,
and it disagrees strongly with the current
establishment.
I find the idea absurd that a person can own
something which doesn't exist outside of the
human mind.
Music is nothing more than vibration of air. Music
does not exist on a tape, or on my hard drive.
Music exists in my mind. It is an
interpretation of data. Outside of the human
mind, writting, words, music are all meaningless.
To claim ownership of any of these things is
to claim to own nothing more than a human
percieved and interpreted pattern of
information.
of course...those are just my offtopic views in
an offtopic conversation.
> As far as stability goes, it doesn't matter.
> Linux will crash just as bad as Windows or
> Powerbooks will
I agree...it does happen. I have had Linux systems
lock up and crash etc. However....they are still
a hundred times more stable than just about
anything else I have used (including many
comercial unicies - there are a couple that have
been on par though).
So yea...my system crashes on the order of
once every other month or so...my workstation
at work does somewhat better.
When you consider the average windows machine
crashes on the order of several times a week or
on some...several times a day...
> Digital Audio is still damn tricky.
the mantra is "User Aps can't crash the system"
(not always true sadly...)
I dunno...certainly keeping your heart beating is
nice but...thats a fairly simple task.
Since idle cycles are wasted cycles...it would
be really nice to run a distributed.net client
on a pacemaker.....
> I believe that Intellectual works aren't
> abundant, since there's a scarcity of skill &
> talent in the world.
I tend to disagree. Information is a resource
which, once created, can be multiplied enough for
everyone at almost zero cost. Perhaps there is
scarcity of new information, as talented people
are needed to create it...but...once created,
any scarcity of that information is completely
artifical.
VX is a deadly nerve gas....
.0000001 mg per square meter.
if you have ever seen the move "the Rock" its
the stuff that was being used.
Nasty shit...has a maximum safe level of
something like
very deadly. The patent for it was declassified
in 1975...yea.
Only 1 known death from VX...a Japanese cult
member who had left the cult. The cult mixed
up some VX and killed him with it.
(I am told by friends who were in the military
to not believe that he is the ONLY known death...
just the only publicly known one)
> It is an example of how a system cannot be
> centralized in one group of hands.
Communism is not Communism!
What I mean is not all communism is the same.
Einstein was said to have affiliation with an
anarcho-communist group.
anarcho-communism is VERY differnt from
state-communism.
> Communism is responsible for more crimes than
> any other political movement in the history of
> the 20th century.
Like what exactly? Or are we attributing the
atrocities of every iron fisted dictator who
ever decided to call himself communist to
communism itself?
I supose then we should say that christianity is
evil because some people who call themselves
christian have committed atrocities?
> The horrors of Nazi Germany that still terrify
> most of the western world were derrived from the
> "Big Brother" - and who is that but the Friend
> and the Teacher, Josef Jugashvili-Stalin.
A) NAZIs are National Socialists. They were not
communists, and one of the tenents of communism
is not "persecute and murder anyone who oposes
you"
B) Stalin was a totalitarian dictator not a
communist.
He called himself a communist, thats just because
it is popular. Many fascist politicans in this
country call themselves liberal or conservative.
Not because they know what the word means or
would agree with a real liberal or conservative
if they met one...just cuz its "in style".
> You don't think our ancestors could afford to
> share the dead carcases of animals with others?
Do you think that early humans didn't share with
their fellow man, at least within their communal
groups?
> Little babies are greedy too. Try having your
> average 2 year old share.
A two year old has already learned ALOT from his
fammily. Remember...at age 0 a baby starts with
almost nothing...very little in the way of
instincs. It takes many 2 years before they even
learn to speak in simple sentances. Even motor
control of most muscles is still being learned.
2 years is plenty of time for them to start
picking up on behaviours and pattenrs of things.
> Communism is a political theory that posits a
> series of inevitable revolutions of the working
> class, each time resulting in a fairer society
> until you finally get to a completely fair
> communist state.
A) Actually Marxist Communism does...not communism
in general
B) Very good point. Marx was not advocating that
violent overthrow happen...he was stating his
belief that this was the inevitable result of
class strugle. Not that it SHOULD happen but that
it WOULD happen.
Anyone who has read the communist manifesto should
be able to see that clearly, he believed that all
of history so far has been the history of class
strugle (the thesis of the document actually) and
that the inevitable result is a classless system.
> Karl Marx postulated the dictatorship of the
> proletariat, as well as the necessity of a
> violent overthrow of the capitalist system.
> The ideology of communism and socialism has
> been violent from the start
Marx is not the be all and end all of communism.
He wasn't even the start of communism. Marx was
more of a Communist philosopher/realist than
the previous philosophers.
In fact his advocacy of violent overthow was
partially a reaction to other philosophers who
he saw as silly, as they advocated just starting
nice little utopian communist communities (ie
communes) and showing the world by example how
it would work.
> As long as an ideology doesn't advocate violence
> as the primary means to an end, I believe
> such people should have the "freedom to" do
> whatever they wish.
However...your capitalist/republic system has
violence inherent in it. Where does law get its
force? What makes the old men, senators and
congressmen any diffent from a bunch of
grandfathers sitting in a lodge talking about how
the world should be?
The difference: men with guns.
What is a law? A law is nothing more than a threat
the threat that "If you do (or don't do) X then
men with guns will visit violence upon you"
(I call locking a person up in a cell a pretty
damned violent act)
The threat of violence, and the use of
violence are the foundations of the system. What
makes the current system's violence "justified"
and that of anothers ideals not? Was the
constitution handed down to George Washington
by God himself? Is it now a devine document
specifing thegreater law of the universe?
In essence the government, any government, is no
differnt then a bunch of armed thugs. Sure...we
can "Vote" to change who the thugs are...we can
even somewhat influcnce what they do by
threatening to replace them...in the end they
are still abunch of corrupt armed thugs.
> The question is not that "I want more than you",
> it's that "I want something, but there's not
> enough to go around". Hence we use a market to
> allocate resources
Which sounds great as you explain it...but...
what about when there is plenty to go around?
We apply the "market" idea to everything,
regardless of scarcity.
Personally...I don't think money is all that
great of a motivating factor. Those who are
highly motivated by money. People are much more
motivated by a desire to be productive and
fullfill their basic needs of food, shelter etc.
> It is not an "IDEA" or a sound - it is a song.
> It is a unique, non-obvious construction built
> from basic materials (pitch, harmony, rhythm).
> The basic materials are not IP, but the final
> construction is.
This is where we have our fundamental disagreement
I do not believe in intellectual property.
The very notion that something that is purely
intellectual...something like an idea, or a
set of sounds that weave into the rich tapestry of
a song can be "property" and "owned".
I realize that this is a common idea...one that
alot of peole like (or at least accept). However
it just doesn't jive for me. The entire concept
of "information as peoperty" seems very
unnatural and just plain wrong.
I realize that the concept of IP was invented
for good reasons...and had very good intentions.
Making sure artists have incentive to work. Thats
great...increace the amount of art in the world.
Very nobel goals. However, just because the goals
are nobel, doesn't make the means correct.
The very idea that i can have a music CD, I can
play it...but I can't copy a song for a friend
who likes it, because it is "morally wrong" is
just so absurd to me. The idea that I can't share
the information on a CD or my hard drive because
"I don't OWN the information, just the hardware"
is absurd to me.
Lois de Brandice (whose name I probably just
murderd) said "If we desire respect for the law,
we must first make the law respectable". I am
sorry, but any law that would state that "You
can own the physical media, and not own whats
on the media...and can't share whats on it with
friends, or do whatever else you want with it"
is just too absurd to be respectable.
Of course...thats just my viewpoint. I realise
that my view is in the minority in many cases.
Copyright was a great idea 200 years ago. I think
it is quite outdated and I would not weap a tear
to see it go away completely. I realize that wont
happen very soon...but I will certainly be out
here trying to spread my dissenting opionion
to try to get my concept to infect enough minds
to destroy the currently dominent concepts.
-Steve
> In order to have a decent crack at the higher
> education whip, a person would have to:
> Give up their job, or significantly reduce the
> number of hours they work,
So noone has ever worked a full time job to
put themselves through school? Somehow I doubt
that.
Hell I have no degree...because I work at a
University I can take 2 free courses per semester.
I could get a degree...in 8 years or so.
It may take longer...but work and education
do not have to be mutually exlusive.
> In this case, potentially have to invest in
> computer hardware
One could argue that to get into a real university
you have to put in the inital investment of 4
years in high school (not true...my sister
spent 1.5 years in HS...left and got her GED,
then went into colledge 2 years early)
Yea...its an inital investemtn that has to be made
to be able to do it...however...given the cost
of normal universities...this is a very low
enty investment. Besides...would you really go off
to a real university without a computer these
days? Would you want to be subject to working on
papers whenever a PC is free in the lab or when
the computer labs are open?
Seriously...I was a school for a year a few years
back (school life wasn't for me...I learn better
off on my own doing things then in classrooms)
and I knew 1 person without a computer of his
own.
> Encourage everything currently considered
> cheating: collaborative work (via instant
> messengers, internet phone, IRC, whatever), use
> of reference materials, everything. This is
> good real life training anyway: you always
> collaborate with people to get things done.
I have to agree here. Definitly.
I would rather work with someone who is willing
to admit that they don't know everything and look
up or ask about what they don't know, then someone
who feels the need to just know everything.
Real work is like that. If you don't know...you
ask. People collaberate. In fact....discussing
a problem with someone else is a great way to
learn more.
As for reference material....as Einsein said...
"Never memorize anything that you can look up".
Actually...I have had tests even in high school
where we were encouraged to bring our notes to
the test. Its more important that we know how to
work through a problem then we know formulas by
heart.
Perhaps a University Sanctioned chat line where
people could IM etc...and it could be reviewed
by a TA or equiv. Just to make sure people were
discussing problems and not just saying : 1a 2b
etc.
-Steve
> I think what he was saying was that the social
> interaction of attending a real university would
> be missing.
Well since man is a social animal...I doubt this
would mean sticking yourself in a room and staring
at a web page for 4 years.
What about the people who ar ealready around you?
Does one have to be surrounded by students to
reap the full benefits of study?
Social interaction takes place every day. Its
not just in schools.