me: The things I listed are things that government provides to everyone.
you: Uh, no. You pay for those services through property taxes (among others.)
Well, the fact that you pay for them does not contradict that the government provides them for everyone.
In the sense that you mean "pay", you're correct. What I meant was:
-You pay some taxes. -The government provides some services.
But when it comes to taxes, it is not a strict "pay for service" exchange. That would be a user fee. If you don't pay taxes, the government still provides police and fire protection to you. It still maintains roads in your area. The fact that the government provides you police protection, fire protection, and road maintenance in the area around you, is not, in other words, evidence that you're getting favoritism, and it's FUD to construe that way.
If the creation museum isn't paying property taxes, then they are getting those things for free - but most of us DO pay them, and we DO NOT get them for free.
I actually don't know the tax status of the museum, by my understanding is that non-profits, like universities an churches, are exempt from property taxes. Such a subsidy you've described is thus an artifact of a general policy of not taxing non-profits, *not* of providing favoritism.
Not having looked at the state budget, I don't know what the case is here. I was just pointing out the ways that you can misconstrue things as "making you pay for something" when it's not -- when that's the conclusion you're hoping for.
Just to be clear, I was showing how you can "prove" that pretty much any organization receives government funding, so... be careful when trying to show how you're forced to pay for something you disagree with.
The things I listed are things that government provides to everyone.
If schools start mandatory field trips to the museum, we can talk.
Actually, this creation museum is ALREADY receiving TAXPAYER funding. It's COMPLETELY outrageous. The state and local government give them FREE police and fire protection, EXEMPTED it from paying its fair share of taxes (due to some BS "non-profit" status), provides it with FREE road maintenance for the surrounding area, REGISTERED it in public directories, and granted it a FREE permit to use the land.
Oh, sorry, I was just looking to rationalize my pre-existing bias that the government forces me to pay for anything I'm opposed to.
1) When I have one bad experience with Ubuntu, I'm a hard-headed moron for never trying again.
2) When your friend has has one bad experience with DRM on a CD (that will be remedied as technology adapts), that's conclusive proof that no one should never copy-protect data they sell.
My point was that the OP's claim about what he would do if digital music were cheaper, was not believable, and just a cover for his desire to save money, not when the law should be followed.
No, my response is not a non-sequitur. I was responding to the claim that "I wouldn't pirate if they sold [licenced] it for cheaper." I did so through a comparison to the claim "I wouldn't shoplift if they sold it for cheaper." Such an argument does not depend on the wrongness of shoplifting, or any underlying justification for shoplifting being wrong. It merely depends on the tenuousness of a person's claim that he would stop violating someone's legal rights, if that person sold those legal rights for less.
Ergo, your claim, "It is wrong to reject someone's claim that he wouldn't pirate music if it were cheaper... because pirating doesn't deprive anyone of anything." Is the real non-sequitur.
But, since a lot of people like to make this argument from scarcity, I'd like to point yout to someone who did a better, and slightly more arrogant, exposition of it, followed by my response. See here. Enjoy.
That's a good point. "After" does imply "because of". For example, after a country defines and enforces physical property rights, it industrializes, there's more stuff to steal, and theft surges. Obviously, obviously enforcing physical property rights causes theft and is thus counterproductive.
Economics 101: price depends on supply and demand. The supply of media on the internet is effectively infinite. Therefore, the only "reasonable price" is zero.
*brain hurting*
Let's count how many things you got wrong:
1) Price depends on supply and demand, but supply and demand depend on other factors. 2) Supply and demand determine the observed, resulting market price, whether or not it counts as "reasonable". Tariffs can double the market price of a car, even though that's "unreasonable". 3) The supply of media on the internet is *not* effectively infinite. It is impeded by search costs and legal restraints. 4) The fact that an additional good can be provided at zero marginal cost does not imply that it would be desirable to require it to be so. Lots of goods have zero marginal cost. For example, many places produce hamburgers in batches such that it costs them nothing at the margin to provide you with one -- after all, if you don't buy it, it'll just be thrown away.
People want media files they can use on any of their media devices at decent quality with a convenient download rate at a reasonable price. Companies who provide that will make a lot of money, because users will be willing to pay that for something they could otherwise download for free.
That companies refuse to sell customers what they want is their problem, not ours.
Oh, sure, I'd quit shoplifting too if the man weren't exploiting me with his high prices. I promise.
Your granny probably doesn't want to download the latest Britney Spears album from whatever the current P2P system is. Anyone who does want to download it probably already knows where to get it from.
False (that would imply there would be no Britney Spears sales) but even so, *knowlege* of how to get it was not a sufficient condition: they have to be reasonably sure *in their own estimation* that they won't get caught. And if P2P were more popular, it would be more visible, and would likely be more heavily targetd.
The music industry currently thrives mainly because of the difficulty the average mouth-breather has with illegally getting music.
This is the same kind of idiocy the media companies were spouting about cassette tapes and VHS; which both turned out to be massive sources of income for the same retarded companies who originally opposed them.
They became massive sources of income because there were enough structural barriers (legal and physical) with duplicating en masse illegally.
You mean the fact that media companies won't make their products easily available to the public to download at a reasonable price?
Please. That justification for leeching didn't work when you were five, and it doesn't work now.
But it can't work, because only one person has to crack the DRM on a file and put it on the Net, and the rest of the world's population can download it.
Yes, the world *can* download it. But for that possibility to negate the goal of the DRM: enough people have to *know* that they can download it, and be willing to take the risk, and the distributors have to insulate themselves enough from law enforcement, etc. etc. etc. Please, try to put yourself in a non-geek's shoes. Not everyone is adept at P2P.
I know that in a few minutes, this response is going way to the bottom because your post will be "0, Flamebait", but you bring up a good point regardless. First of all, why criticize DRM and not the consumer practices that necessitate its use? Second, what counts as "working"? People seem to have a MASSIVE change in their definition of what it means to "work" when talking about DRM. Laws against murder "work" even though murder still happens. Windows still "works" even though it has numerous security holes. For DRM to "work", it's not necessary that it make piracy impossible, only that it reduce it to sufficiently low levels that the production of the work is still profitable.
Basically it seems they are mostly targeting the mostly obsolete networks like Kaazaa, iMesh, Limewire and eMule.
Yeah, but in fairness, you have to keep in mind that because of their efforts, not *one* copyrighted work was ever illegally downloaded from any of those websites.
Then... do you agree that, in the sense that I meant, the military is not needed to bring oil to the American consumer, and therefore current prices do not understate costs in that respect?
You don't need military intervention to get oil, you can just buy it! You need military intervention to get control of oil, and maximize profits from it.
Yes, that's my point. Perhaps it wasn't clear what I was including as a "necessary part of bringing oil to the consumer". The military might be a necessary part of "providing oligopoly profits to politically powerful oil companies", but "providing oligopoly profits to politically powerful oil companies" is not a necessary part of "bringing oil to the consumer".
It's like if a baker baked a cake, hired a hitman to kill his wife, and sold me the cake for $10, and then someone coming along and saying, "Obviously, OBVIOUSLY you aren't paying the TRUE cost of the cake. For example -- the $50,000 bill for the hitman was not reflected in what you paid."
The military cost is part of the true cost of oil. It is a necessary part of making it available at the cost it is currently. The military industrial complex makes money off of war no matter what. And the oil companies profit. What is the contradiction?
The contradiction is in "and the oil companies profit". How does the oil company profit *more* from there being a war? My understanding was that the war would cause a supply shock and allow them to sell their supplies from exsting extraction (elsewhere) for more. Presumably, if there's no war, there's *less* military expenditure, and oil is *cheaper*, and the profit margins are *smaller* -- that's what you would need to establish that war increases the profits of oil companies. But then you concede that you don't really need military intervention to get oil.
How do all the countries with no middle eastern presence get middle eastern oil?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm kind of hoping a private-equity firm or hedge fund buys out Chrysler and turns them around.
Were you being sarcastic? Because the first part of that already happened.
me: The things I listed are things that government provides to everyone.
you: Uh, no. You pay for those services through property taxes (among others.)
Well, the fact that you pay for them does not contradict that the government provides them for everyone.
In the sense that you mean "pay", you're correct. What I meant was:
-You pay some taxes.
-The government provides some services.
But when it comes to taxes, it is not a strict "pay for service" exchange. That would be a user fee. If you don't pay taxes, the government still provides police and fire protection to you. It still maintains roads in your area. The fact that the government provides you police protection, fire protection, and road maintenance in the area around you, is not, in other words, evidence that you're getting favoritism, and it's FUD to construe that way.
If the creation museum isn't paying property taxes, then they are getting those things for free - but most of us DO pay them, and we DO NOT get them for free.
I actually don't know the tax status of the museum, by my understanding is that non-profits, like universities an churches, are exempt from property taxes. Such a subsidy you've described is thus an artifact of a general policy of not taxing non-profits, *not* of providing favoritism.
Not having looked at the state budget, I don't know what the case is here. I was just pointing out the ways that you can misconstrue things as "making you pay for something" when it's not -- when that's the conclusion you're hoping for.
Just to be clear, I was showing how you can "prove" that pretty much any organization receives government funding, so ... be careful when trying to show how you're forced to pay for something you disagree with.
The things I listed are things that government provides to everyone.
If schools start mandatory field trips to the museum, we can talk.
Actually, this creation museum is ALREADY receiving TAXPAYER funding. It's COMPLETELY outrageous. The state and local government give them FREE police and fire protection, EXEMPTED it from paying its fair share of taxes (due to some BS "non-profit" status), provides it with FREE road maintenance for the surrounding area, REGISTERED it in public directories, and granted it a FREE permit to use the land.
Oh, sorry, I was just looking to rationalize my pre-existing bias that the government forces me to pay for anything I'm opposed to.
Ecma 376 contradicts numerous international standards
... that's pretty bad. Usually, when I tell people, "Oh, I don't go by the Gregorian calendar" I'm just joking ...
* 7.1 The Gregorian Calendar
Wow
So "s/A/B" is just a cute way of saying, "I think that by A you meant B"?
I've seen people do the s/something/somethingelse a lot. What does it mean, and what it's alluding to?
I'm tired of mistakes like this:
The successful experiment to lit a 60-watt light bulb
It should be "to lite a 60-watt light bult." Duh?
That's not "zero marginal cost." That just means that the marginal cost is the cost per batch divided by the number of burgers per batch.
No, that would be the average cost. To provide one more customer with one more burger, costs nothing.
It's not much different from "we own anything that results in being able to make an online purchase via one click."
Heh, you gotta love slashdot:
1) When I have one bad experience with Ubuntu, I'm a hard-headed moron for never trying again.
2) When your friend has has one bad experience with DRM on a CD (that will be remedied as technology adapts), that's conclusive proof that no one should never copy-protect data they sell.
Because disguising a weapon as a children's toy violates the Geneva Conventions?
Um, my mom called. She wants her justification for making me eat my bread crusts back.
My point was that the OP's claim about what he would do if digital music were cheaper, was not believable, and just a cover for his desire to save money, not when the law should be followed.
No, my response is not a non-sequitur. I was responding to the claim that "I wouldn't pirate if they sold [licenced] it for cheaper." I did so through a comparison to the claim "I wouldn't shoplift if they sold it for cheaper." Such an argument does not depend on the wrongness of shoplifting, or any underlying justification for shoplifting being wrong. It merely depends on the tenuousness of a person's claim that he would stop violating someone's legal rights, if that person sold those legal rights for less.
... because pirating doesn't deprive anyone of anything." Is the real non-sequitur.
Ergo, your claim, "It is wrong to reject someone's claim that he wouldn't pirate music if it were cheaper
But, since a lot of people like to make this argument from scarcity, I'd like to point yout to someone who did a better, and slightly more arrogant, exposition of it, followed by my response. See here. Enjoy.
That's a good point. "After" does imply "because of". For example, after a country defines and enforces physical property rights, it industrializes, there's more stuff to steal, and theft surges. Obviously, obviously enforcing physical property rights causes theft and is thus counterproductive.
Economics 101: price depends on supply and demand. The supply of media on the internet is effectively infinite. Therefore, the only "reasonable price" is zero.
*brain hurting*
Let's count how many things you got wrong:
1) Price depends on supply and demand, but supply and demand depend on other factors.
2) Supply and demand determine the observed, resulting market price, whether or not it counts as "reasonable". Tariffs can double the market price of a car, even though that's "unreasonable".
3) The supply of media on the internet is *not* effectively infinite. It is impeded by search costs and legal restraints.
4) The fact that an additional good can be provided at zero marginal cost does not imply that it would be desirable to require it to be so. Lots of goods have zero marginal cost. For example, many places produce hamburgers in batches such that it costs them nothing at the margin to provide you with one -- after all, if you don't buy it, it'll just be thrown away.
People want media files they can use on any of their media devices at decent quality with a convenient download rate at a reasonable price. Companies who provide that will make a lot of money, because users will be willing to pay that for something they could otherwise download for free.
That companies refuse to sell customers what they want is their problem, not ours.
Oh, sure, I'd quit shoplifting too if the man weren't exploiting me with his high prices. I promise.
Your granny probably doesn't want to download the latest Britney Spears album from whatever the current P2P system is. Anyone who does want to download it probably already knows where to get it from.
False (that would imply there would be no Britney Spears sales) but even so, *knowlege* of how to get it was not a sufficient condition: they have to be reasonably sure *in their own estimation* that they won't get caught. And if P2P were more popular, it would be more visible, and would likely be more heavily targetd.
The music industry currently thrives mainly because of the difficulty the average mouth-breather has with illegally getting music.
This is the same kind of idiocy the media companies were spouting about cassette tapes and VHS; which both turned out to be massive sources of income for the same retarded companies who originally opposed them.
They became massive sources of income because there were enough structural barriers (legal and physical) with duplicating en masse illegally.
You mean the fact that media companies won't make their products easily available to the public to download at a reasonable price?
Please. That justification for leeching didn't work when you were five, and it doesn't work now.
But it can't work, because only one person has to crack the DRM on a file and put it on the Net, and the rest of the world's population can download it.
Yes, the world *can* download it. But for that possibility to negate the goal of the DRM: enough people have to *know* that they can download it, and be willing to take the risk, and the distributors have to insulate themselves enough from law enforcement, etc. etc. etc. Please, try to put yourself in a non-geek's shoes. Not everyone is adept at P2P.
I know that in a few minutes, this response is going way to the bottom because your post will be "0, Flamebait", but you bring up a good point regardless. First of all, why criticize DRM and not the consumer practices that necessitate its use? Second, what counts as "working"? People seem to have a MASSIVE change in their definition of what it means to "work" when talking about DRM. Laws against murder "work" even though murder still happens. Windows still "works" even though it has numerous security holes. For DRM to "work", it's not necessary that it make piracy impossible, only that it reduce it to sufficiently low levels that the production of the work is still profitable.
wasn't aware of any copyrighted work that could be illegally downloaded from the websites of Kazaa, iMesh, Limewire or eMule
:-P
Yes, that was the joke.
Basically it seems they are mostly targeting the mostly obsolete networks like Kaazaa, iMesh, Limewire and eMule.
Yeah, but in fairness, you have to keep in mind that because of their efforts, not *one* copyrighted work was ever illegally downloaded from any of those websites.
Then ... do you agree that, in the sense that I meant, the military is not needed to bring oil to the American consumer, and therefore current prices do not understate costs in that respect?
You don't need military intervention to get oil, you can just buy it! You need military intervention to get control of oil, and maximize profits from it.
Yes, that's my point. Perhaps it wasn't clear what I was including as a "necessary part of bringing oil to the consumer". The military might be a necessary part of "providing oligopoly profits to politically powerful oil companies", but "providing oligopoly profits to politically powerful oil companies" is not a necessary part of "bringing oil to the consumer".
It's like if a baker baked a cake, hired a hitman to kill his wife, and sold me the cake for $10, and then someone coming along and saying, "Obviously, OBVIOUSLY you aren't paying the TRUE cost of the cake. For example -- the $50,000 bill for the hitman was not reflected in what you paid."
The military cost is part of the true cost of oil. It is a necessary part of making it available at the cost it is currently. The military industrial complex makes money off of war no matter what. And the oil companies profit. What is the contradiction?
The contradiction is in "and the oil companies profit". How does the oil company profit *more* from there being a war? My understanding was that the war would cause a supply shock and allow them to sell their supplies from exsting extraction (elsewhere) for more. Presumably, if there's no war, there's *less* military expenditure, and oil is *cheaper*, and the profit margins are *smaller* -- that's what you would need to establish that war increases the profits of oil companies. But then you concede that you don't really need military intervention to get oil.
How do all the countries with no middle eastern presence get middle eastern oil?