You have still not justified your assumptions that any artistic works actually exist because of copyright
My claim is that there exist *some* works that would not have been made but for copyright, and every honest person already accepts this. Take any 20th century Hollywood movie. (The time, not the studio.)
that those works provide a benefit to society great enough to outweight their reliance on copyright.
I justify this on the claim that copyright as such does not hurt any copyright-free revenue method. See the several times I have demonstrated this.
me:*What* negative impact of copyright? It is your obligation to list one.
you:Here, I'll list three:
Copyright is a monopoly. Worse, it's a monopoly *created and enforced* by the State. Monopolies are economic bad news.
Correction: monopolies are economic bad news iff they induce an economic inefficiency. That clearly does not apply to goods that only exist because of an act of the monopolist. That would imply that a monopoly on your own labor (i.e. prohibition of slavery) is "economic bad news".
As for whether copyright is "created and enforced by the State", that's only true to the extent that any property right, including that in your labor is created and enforced by the State. If one requires/doesn't require the state, the other requires/doesn't require the State.
Copyright discourages the creation of new works from artists who create successful works.
So, it discourages work beyond the work that they only created because of copyright? Well, without copyright, you don't get the first one.
Copyright requires non-trivial amounts of bureaucratic and legal infrastructure.
Only to the extent that it fails to shift the cost onto violators, which all laws should be expected to do in the first place.
So, you still haven't listed one.
In a discussion of how copyright _actually_ causes problems, arguments about how it wouldn't cause problems, "but only if it's done right", are irrelevant (not to mention unsupportable).
They're entirely relevant. The original claim I addressed as that copyright *as such* "hurts artists". It doesn't.
I have theorised about a "copyright" system in the past that I consider fair, reasonable and beneficial to everyone deserving - although distributors wouldn't like it.
Sure, because -- let me guess -- you removed the alienability of copyright bundle. ("All the revenues should go to the artist, man, not the distributor!") Why you think removing the utility of the rights an artist have under copyright would make the rights more valuable is beyond me.
But without any actual data I don't make any _assertions_ as to what the results would be.
My intellectual opponents here go beyond lacking data; they don't describe a scenario in which favorable data would exist.
You have not supported your implication of a causal link between copyright and works that have delivered an overall benefit to society.
Yes, I have, see above, and every post leading up to it.
Even if you did, your argument runs up against the problem that copyright stops derivatives of works that would have existed even in the absence of copyright.
No, it doesn't, unless you want to keep hanging your hat on the claim that adding "This work is public domain" is a non-trivial burden.
I'd appreciate it if the world wasn't full of pompous, conceited twats like you, but it's not going to happen.
People who are right in way that upsets you will *always* look that way. Overcoming that instinct is the hard part.
You still haven't addressed the first case I provided,
Right, because I'm not going to be jerked around by someone who knowingly chooses examples that don't fit.
Do you really expect me to disprove each example one-by-one until you get to one that counts? That's not how it works, I'm afraid. I'm not obligated to go through the effort to disprove each example until you can get your act together. Just for fun, I'll check it out some time though. I don't think it tells on each one whether they took stand.
Innocent people have been executed in this country, and innocents will continue to be executed.
I agree with that (for a narrow definition of "innocent"). Remember my original position?
and as I have presented a much stronger argument than you have, I feel like I've done what I set out to do.
Yeah, you presented an "argument" no one here disputed. My concern was about a more nuanced question -- one you didn't address.
I will admit that, if you are white and/or make enough money, you have little to worry about wrongful execution. Another sad fact about our justice system.
Only to the extent that those groups correlate with "not doing stupid **** when accused of a serious crime, and don't as often commit those crimes".
Again, I don't dispute that people are executed when they didn't commit the crime. What I dispute is that people who follow the simple formula I outlined have a risk of execution.
Now, if you want to say that, gosh, if someone's innocent, we should expect him not to be convicted even if he does mislead the police, hide evidence, sabatoge his own defense, refuse to tell his version of events, etc. I might even agree. But that's different from saying that the death penalty leads to random, innocent people being railroaded against the best honest efforts on their part.
From the link: "There are several Disney animated adaptations based very loosely on the Mowgli stories. (Adaptations of The Jungle Book tend to concentrate on Mowgli's adventures.) It has also been filmed several times with varying degrees of authenticity. Disney's 1967 animated film version, based loosely on the Mowgli stories, was extremely popular, though it took great liberties with the plot, characters and the pronunciation of the characters' names. " (bold added)
Having the same general story as someone else would not be protected under copyright. In fact, it was made at a time of "bad" copyright laws, and yet it still managed to get made.
No, you didn't. You ignored what I asked for and then gave something you deemed "close enough".
You obviously have not even read the links I provided.
Of course I didn't. The links as labled didn't indicate that they could contain what I was asking for.
Do accept the fact that you are wrong, or will you try to weasel out of this by claiming that some part of your criteria were not fulfilled?
I asked for people who met certain criteria. You gave people that failed to meet the criteria. Objecting on that ground is not "weaseling out". It is you "not getting it".
I suppose in the second case he doesn't technically fulfill the "not confessing to the crime" criteria, but I don't think a confession tortured out of someone should count, do you?
My critera was "no confession". And I seriously doubt it was "tortured out of him" as conventionally understood, otherwise he would have "e) cooperated in their defense at trial" and gotten it thrown out on this grounds. I don't deny that force was used, but this is not the same as "beating a confession out of someone", even if it is reprehensible.
But you had left yourself an out in how you worded your original statement.
Not unless you consider *any* criteria for *anything* to be an out. "Hey, on this triangle, a^2 + b^2 doesn't equal c^2... oh RIGHT, nice one there, you left yourself an out in that the triangles have to be *right* triangles. ****in' weasel."
You have stated a belief that has been proven false, and made to look quite the fool.
How does someone who can't suppress his knee jerking look?
Ahhhh, how exactly is one to be proven innocent after one is dead? Who would go to the bother,
Just guess here: maybe people who are hellbent on proving that the innocent get executed?
Know anyone like that?
and who exactly would decide? What would you accept as proof of innocence?
Anything that establishes innocence beyond a reasonable doubt: DNA evidence showing it was someone else at the scene, a recording showing the person was somewhere else, a witness significantly altering testimony, etc.
I'm sorry but you have set up criteria that are impossible to fulfill.
No, they're easy to fulfill if examples exist, and they're precisely the heart of the matter.
And can you please answer the question: do you think that innocent people, defined by your criteria, are NEVER executed? Really? Never? Go ahead, say it plainly and clearly and see how it sounds: "Innocent people, as defined by my criteria, have never, are never, and will never be executed." Go on, say it. We all need a good laugh.
Innocent people, as defined by my criteria, have never, are never, and will never be executed.
If you didn't commit a serious crime, and you're accused of it, here's a crazy idea: tell the truth.
Don't cover for Uncle Mikey. Don't change your story. Tell your story to the jury. Tell your defense lawyer everything.
I'm aware of all of that, intimately. I wasn't claiming that Wii bowling, or any of the Wii Sports games *currently* uses the sensor bar (except for the pointer when selecting). I was simply saying that to implement a Wiisaber, you could do what Wii baseball currently does, and *supplement* it with IR light data to get horizontal orientation.
Do you REALLY not see how ridiculous your criteria are?
No, I can't. When someone says "the death penalty may snare innocent people", they're insinuating that it puts ordinary, innocent people, like me, at risk. Failing to meet those criteria would refute that.
"Possibly innocent" won't cut it, I'm afraid. "Exonerated" won't either. In a lot of the cases the accused confesses, or helped cover up the crime. For me to be afraid of being wrongfully executed, I have to be afraid that I would be executed, even if I did everything in the list. Yeah, it sounds cold, but it's hard for me to feel sorry for someone who got executed, when he "merely" covered up the crime, or "merely" misled the police as to who the killer was.
If the works that Disney derived from would have been protected by copyright,
The works Disney derived from *could not* have been protected by copyright, especially a reasonable system. He was making works based on folk tales that had long been passed down with no definable owner, and only vaguely borrowed from them.
me: It's not provable in the mathematical sense, but given that the artists preferred not to use the non-copyright method that was available to them, and did require significant financial investment, it is unreasonable to think otherwise.
you: Please explain why that is unreasonable.
Um, maybe because "given that the artists preferred not to use the non-copyright method that was available to them, and did require significant financial investment"... like, you know, I just said?
And, as I detailed back toward where I came in, having copyright does not interfere with those who don't want to use it, so by having copyright, we get strictly more.
It may SEEM unreasonable to you because of the envvironment you are living in, the things you are used to...
Oh, give me a break! I'm the last person this objection is warranted for. I accept that there are innovative ideas that will appear in the future and change everything, that we can't anticipate today. I'm the one always lecturing people on the dangers of static thinking and the possibility of unforseen new methods. I'm the one who actually hates the terms "paycheck" and "paystub" since they assume an obsolete item. (e.g., You can get direct deposit rather than having to go to a bank yourself to depsit a checkable note. I prefer "pay" or "payment" and "pay record" respectively.) I'm the one currently compiling a paper that details new, as-of-yet unused ways to profit from intellectual works without IP (and have much better ideas for inventions than artistic works.)
However, the "current way" has long incorporated alternate, copyright-free revenue models, and none has been powerful enough to make copyright models obsolete. No one, including you, describe, even in the most general terms, how such a method would work. I can of course understand why you can't tell me *exactly* how it would work, but not even at an abstract level? Give me something to contradict my claim, anything. But remember as long as copyright can provide better compensation, that means it will lead to some works that wouldn't have existed otherwise and that people would volutarily part with their own money to see.
I believe that people who are innocent of the capital crime of which they are accused, will be inevitably executed.
I do not believe the people who are innocent of the capital crime of which they accused AND:
a) cooperated with the police b) did not confess to the crime c) took the witness stand at trial d) did not commit any other capital crimes e) cooperated in their defense at trial f) are in a country with an independent judiciary g) did not assist in the crime h) had DNA tests done
will inevitably be executed. Counter-examples are welcome.
If you mean the original, I'm really really sorry for acting like I have a following. See here for why I did it.
If you mean the follow-ups, well, let's just say that in real life, anyone who's going to ignore half of what I say, will probably just go ahead and interrupt me mid-spiel so they can claim ignorance at least. Though I have been in situations like this:
them: So when's the wedding again? me: Next week, on Saturday. them: You mean this coming Saturday, or next week on Saturday? me: Next week, on Saturday. them: okay, thanks for clarifying that.
I think over time I've just gotten more bitter about people who ignore what I say.
That's what I thought, but I couldn't be sure from your wording since a lot of people don't know how to use grammer properly. I didn't want to put words in your mouth by assuming that you intended to say one thing or another, so I just pointed out that a counterexample exists depending on your intention. As a note, the example you provided in the original post really didn't convey the general idea that you describe in this one....
I agree I could have explained that better, but in my defense, many of the responses looked like people hadn't bothered reading anything beyond that sentence. See this one and especially this one.
Anyway, that was mostly just semantics. As for the car question, it seems like you are basically arguing for a free market where most (or maybe even all?) externalities are accounted for and figured into the pricing of applicable goods and services. Is that correct? If so, do you extend this model to most other markets or just energy?
I wouldn't say "all". It should be significantly more than the cost of detecting and enforcing them. You don't want a situation where e.g. if you wear cologne you have to pay a nickel to every fourth person because they don't like the smell. And the justification for doing it with C02 is not that it involves energy but that it could e.g. lead to flooding. I'd want the same thing for pollution. As for how much? Trillion dollar question there. I'd say the minimum of a) the minimum possible "undoing" costs (no that wasn't a redundancy) and b) enough to barely return victims to their "indifference curve" (i.e., they are about indifferent between [1] no payment, no pollution, and [2] payment and pollution). b) encourages people to inflate their victimhood, so you could make them honest through an indifference vote. That is, they bid how much they'd pay not to have the externality, and the e.g. polluter bids how much they'd pay for the right to it, and occastionally, if the former is greater, the victims have to pay.
(I emphasize that this is for thinly-spread externalities; if someone simply dumps waste onto someone's property, they should have to pay cleanup costs and other compensation, regardless.)
Incidentally, I said the same thing the following sentence of the post you originally responded to, but you didn't realize it was related to the answer.
you: You need to justify your implications that a) only better works are created due to the existence of copyright
This is justified above in the previous argument that with OR without copyright, people will do the things that don't need copyright to encourage them to do, but with copyright, we get the things that don't, and those that do -- strictly more.
you: [that] b) those better works, on the whole, outweigh the negative impact of copyright.
How does the law make living in a large house with CFLs less penalized, or a small apartment with incandescents more penalized? In either case, when you go out to buy a light bulb to replace one that burnt out, you need to buy a CFL.
What I meant was, filling my small apartment with incandescents would be *illegal* (and fined or whatever) while merely wasting a lot more energy by having a large house with CFL's would not be.
Considering that this thread started on a point pertaining to "copyright laws as they exist now", not necessarily whether copyright laws should exist at all, who's wasting whose time?
The point I responded to in the original parent's post, applied to all copyright, not just some idiosyncracy of the current law, as did most of the points in the original responses.
And I'd really an answer to the question at the end of my post; I want to learn how to avoid making people think I believe the opposite of what I say.
And I actually provided such a reason (that most of the public domain works that Walt Disney used derivatively to build his media empire would not be PD under today's laws, which ironically were largely sponsored by Disney), which you seem to have ignored.
I didn't ignore it; this fact simply didn't contradict any claim I made. You have shown that a public domain should exist. I don't dispute this. The only thing I was claiming was that there should be *some* copyright over *some* period.
I would take exception to both of your "givens". Remember, copyright is automatic to all creative works;
It is, currently; it is not necessarily part of copyright as such.
a "non-copyright method", OTOH, requires specific action on the part of the creator to release his work under some alternative licensing scheme. So to claim any artist who does not choose the latter deliberate path to the former automatic path prefers the legal default is specious.
No, claiming that adding "this work is in the public domain" adds non-trivial effort for the artist, is specious.
Nor do all or even most copyrighted works "require significant financial investment". This post, upon creation, is a copyrighted work, but I can assure you the financial investment is minimal. So I would submit that the vast majority of copyrighted works *would* be created whether copyright protections exist or not.
Torch that strawman all you want; it's not necessary to demonstrate that some works need no copyright incentive for copyright to be justified. All that's necessary is that there be *some* noteworthy works that wouldn't be produced without.
That said, I will agree that there are many great works that would likely not have been created without *some* sort of protection,
Oh, good. So I guess you agree in some kind of copyright but have been wasting our time?
but you seem to be saying that this is *always* the case, which I would deem unreasonable.
Considering that contradicts everything I believe and every claim I've ever made here, please show me exactly where you got the idea I thought this.
Of course, it is impossible to prove that something that does not exist would exist under some other conditions.
Hm. You make a good point. How about this: I'll simply ask for a reason why something *could* exist without copyright, but not with copyright.
Oh, wait, I already did that before you jumped in with your insights!
I'll even say that the opposite, the claim that a given copyrighted work would not exist except for copyright, is just as unprovable.
It's not provable in the mathematical sense, but given that the artists preferred not to use the non-copyright method that was available to them, and did require significant financial investment, it is unreasonable to think otherwise.
For the record, I consider at least this post from a critic to be reasonable.
First, I have to say that I don't think this is always true, but then again I don't think you are really claiming that it is true in every instance. If you think it is, it's easy to provide a counterexample.
Correct. But my point was more general: they will put that savings *somewhere*. Maybe they'll invest it, and which facilitates a corporation using more energy than they would have. Maybe they'll apply it to the vacation fund, and take one more than they would have. The point is, if you *just* suppress one instance of energy use, without changing the incentive structure that contributes to carbon emissions, all you're doing is:
a) swapping out one waste for another b) pissing off a bunch of people, including those with unambiguously important uses for incandescents c) forgoing significant tax revenues that could be working toward a solution.
It really burns me how, I, the guy using ~300 kwh per month while using incandescents and living in a small apartment, am being scapegoated for the energy consumption of Mr. and Mrs. Howmuchamonth in their giant suburban home.
Beyond that, I'm wondering if you feel the same way about this when it comes to car emissions. I can see how the same argument applies, but I have doubts about it due to things like the availability of cars with good gas mileage. I guess I'm wondering if you think that car manufacturers shouldn't have to make fuel efficient cars. I agree that if someone wants to buy a car that eats gas, they should be able to, but I also think that American car makers wouldn't make fuel efficient options without some restrictions.
I do carry the same reasoning over. They *should not* have to make fuel efficient cars, but if gasoline is adequately priced to include externalities, that would (let's assume) make gasoline very expensive, probably enough that it becomes major factor in what car to buy, and it would make economic sense to sell. That, or driving is expensive to begin with and people build lives around not having to drive so often.
Of course, the bigger problem is the overuse of roads, which are underpriced and deserve the same solutions. See my last joural entry.
If it's about autistics, I was simply referring to people who are sensitive to certain kinds of light, and yes, fluorescent bothers some people enough to give them headaches. I simply listed autistics as an example, even though it's certainly not exclusive to them, nor universal to them.
About photographers... what? Every photo studio I know lights with incandescents. Plus, their bulbs.
If that's his point, then those appear to be problems with a) limitations on fair use, and b) the lack of a reliable way of knowing, NOT with copyright as such.
Certainly, copyright should not attach unless specifically asserted, so later artists can know, and fair use should exist. But that doesn't address the larger matter of whether some kind of copyright should exist at all.
Actually... I think a lot of people - the dozen or so replied to you understood your point -
No, they didn't. Their posts were mostly non-responsive, and seem to have only applied if my post had ended at the second or third paragraph.
and to a tee most people disagree with you.
Most people were *upset* by my post, but to disagree, they have to know what it says.
Interesting how fiercely you started bashing them.
Right. When someone (like you) ignores everything I say and responds to something I didn't, my next response could be characterized as "fierce bashing".
We all see the point you made.. it's wrong. Human nature in general will not mean 100% of the citizens in Australia will now light their homes 24 hours per day to make up for the missed opportunity to consume energy.
And that wasn't my point, so I guess you now admit you didn't see it.
Somewhere some of them will actually reduce consumption... so it's a pretty nifty idea - yet too bad it has to come to government regulation.
Here's where you mess up:
They have to reduce consumption OR cancel the effects of their consumption. And if they do cut their consumption, we have to calculate the efficiency. It would cut consumption to turn all lights off all the time, but is that the best way to conserve? No. And if there is government regulation, does it have to be of the form of *banning* certain things, or merely putting the appopropriate price on them.
See, these are all little "nuances" that went right over your head. Can you start to see why I'm getting the impression you didn't bother to actually read my posts before responding?
Apparently, that little bit set off quite a firestorm. Let me try to explain.
Some people talk about the same topic a lot and say the same things, and this results in them being the butt of jokes. For example, on a story about money, someone said "Cue dada21 griping about the end of the gold standard in 3...2...". Hah, hah.
When I made that remark, I was simply acknowledging that I've said this stuff before, so as to pre-empt someone else pointing it out. That's it. I wasn't trying to artificially inflate the merit of my arguments, or act like a celebrity, or anything like that. The link to my own post from before was simply to allow people who were interested to get a better elaboration of what I meant by "input vs. output methods".
When you state something, you can be asked to back it up with some kind of argument or even provide some kind of proof.
I appreciate the lesson in rhetoric.
However, the claim in question -- that there exist artistic works that are not produced because of copyright -- was the only unreasonable claim here that was lacking proof. (Remember, "I can't create a derivative of this copyrighted work" is not an argument -- that work only existed because of copyright.) I've covered my bases.
And I didn't even ask for proof, I just asked for an example to show why that would happen.
No, you're not. You're really, really not. When you accuse someone who proposed an alternate method of controlling carbon emissions and their impacts, of:
a) denying the existence of global warming b) being a smoking-cancer link denier c) saying the government should do nothing d) believing that it would be such a bad thing to harm the environment less
and that person didn't do any of those things, you are not being "open minded". You are close-mindedly refusing to listen to what he has to say, and pigeonholing him so that you don't have to consider his views.
Now, try to live up to the "open-minded" label this time, and actually read my original post again. It's fun. It's like being open-minded, except without lying about it this time.
Slashdot Mirror
You have still not justified your assumptions that any artistic works actually exist because of copyright
My claim is that there exist *some* works that would not have been made but for copyright, and every honest person already accepts this. Take any 20th century Hollywood movie. (The time, not the studio.)
that those works provide a benefit to society great enough to outweight their reliance on copyright.
I justify this on the claim that copyright as such does not hurt any copyright-free revenue method. See the several times I have demonstrated this.
me:*What* negative impact of copyright? It is your obligation to list one.
you:Here, I'll list three:
Copyright is a monopoly. Worse, it's a monopoly *created and enforced* by the State. Monopolies are economic bad news.
Correction: monopolies are economic bad news iff they induce an economic inefficiency. That clearly does not apply to goods that only exist because of an act of the monopolist. That would imply that a monopoly on your own labor (i.e. prohibition of slavery) is "economic bad news".
As for whether copyright is "created and enforced by the State", that's only true to the extent that any property right, including that in your labor is created and enforced by the State. If one requires/doesn't require the state, the other requires/doesn't require the State.
Copyright discourages the creation of new works from artists who create successful works.
So, it discourages work beyond the work that they only created because of copyright? Well, without copyright, you don't get the first one.
Copyright requires non-trivial amounts of bureaucratic and legal infrastructure.
Only to the extent that it fails to shift the cost onto violators, which all laws should be expected to do in the first place.
So, you still haven't listed one.
In a discussion of how copyright _actually_ causes problems, arguments about how it wouldn't cause problems, "but only if it's done right", are irrelevant (not to mention unsupportable).
They're entirely relevant. The original claim I addressed as that copyright *as such* "hurts artists". It doesn't.
I have theorised about a "copyright" system in the past that I consider fair, reasonable and beneficial to everyone deserving - although distributors wouldn't like it.
Sure, because -- let me guess -- you removed the alienability of copyright bundle. ("All the revenues should go to the artist, man, not the distributor!") Why you think removing the utility of the rights an artist have under copyright would make the rights more valuable is beyond me.
But without any actual data I don't make any _assertions_ as to what the results would be.
My intellectual opponents here go beyond lacking data; they don't describe a scenario in which favorable data would exist.
You have not supported your implication of a causal link between copyright and works that have delivered an overall benefit to society.
Yes, I have, see above, and every post leading up to it.
Even if you did, your argument runs up against the problem that copyright stops derivatives of works that would have existed even in the absence of copyright.
No, it doesn't, unless you want to keep hanging your hat on the claim that adding "This work is public domain" is a non-trivial burden.
I'd appreciate it if the world wasn't full of pompous, conceited twats like you, but it's not going to happen.
People who are right in way that upsets you will *always* look that way. Overcoming that instinct is the hard part.
You still haven't addressed the first case I provided,
Right, because I'm not going to be jerked around by someone who knowingly chooses examples that don't fit.
Do you really expect me to disprove each example one-by-one until you get to one that counts? That's not how it works, I'm afraid. I'm not obligated to go through the effort to disprove each example until you can get your act together. Just for fun, I'll check it out some time though. I don't think it tells on each one whether they took stand.
Innocent people have been executed in this country, and innocents will continue to be executed.
I agree with that (for a narrow definition of "innocent"). Remember my original position?
and as I have presented a much stronger argument than you have, I feel like I've done what I set out to do.
Yeah, you presented an "argument" no one here disputed. My concern was about a more nuanced question -- one you didn't address.
I will admit that, if you are white and/or make enough money, you have little to worry about wrongful execution. Another sad fact about our justice system.
Only to the extent that those groups correlate with "not doing stupid **** when accused of a serious crime, and don't as often commit those crimes".
Again, I don't dispute that people are executed when they didn't commit the crime. What I dispute is that people who follow the simple formula I outlined have a risk of execution.
Now, if you want to say that, gosh, if someone's innocent, we should expect him not to be convicted even if he does mislead the police, hide evidence, sabatoge his own defense, refuse to tell his version of events, etc. I might even agree. But that's different from saying that the death penalty leads to random, innocent people being railroaded against the best honest efforts on their part.
From the link: "There are several Disney animated adaptations based very loosely on the Mowgli stories. (Adaptations of The Jungle Book tend to concentrate on Mowgli's adventures.) It has also been filmed several times with varying degrees of authenticity. Disney's 1967 animated film version, based loosely on the Mowgli stories, was extremely popular, though it took great liberties with the plot, characters and the pronunciation of the characters' names. " (bold added)
Having the same general story as someone else would not be protected under copyright. In fact, it was made at a time of "bad" copyright laws, and yet it still managed to get made.
I already gave you what you asked for, then.
... oh RIGHT, nice one there, you left yourself an out in that the triangles have to be *right* triangles. ****in' weasel."
No, you didn't. You ignored what I asked for and then gave something you deemed "close enough".
You obviously have not even read the links I provided.
Of course I didn't. The links as labled didn't indicate that they could contain what I was asking for.
Do accept the fact that you are wrong, or will you try to weasel out of this by claiming that some part of your criteria were not fulfilled?
I asked for people who met certain criteria. You gave people that failed to meet the criteria. Objecting on that ground is not "weaseling out". It is you "not getting it".
I suppose in the second case he doesn't technically fulfill the "not confessing to the crime" criteria, but I don't think a confession tortured out of someone should count, do you?
My critera was "no confession". And I seriously doubt it was "tortured out of him" as conventionally understood, otherwise he would have "e) cooperated in their defense at trial" and gotten it thrown out on this grounds. I don't deny that force was used, but this is not the same as "beating a confession out of someone", even if it is reprehensible.
But you had left yourself an out in how you worded your original statement.
Not unless you consider *any* criteria for *anything* to be an out. "Hey, on this triangle, a^2 + b^2 doesn't equal c^2
You have stated a belief that has been proven false, and made to look quite the fool.
How does someone who can't suppress his knee jerking look?
Ahhhh, how exactly is one to be proven innocent after one is dead? Who would go to the bother,
Just guess here: maybe people who are hellbent on proving that the innocent get executed?
Know anyone like that?
and who exactly would decide? What would you accept as proof of innocence?
Anything that establishes innocence beyond a reasonable doubt: DNA evidence showing it was someone else at the scene, a recording showing the person was somewhere else, a witness significantly altering testimony, etc.
I'm sorry but you have set up criteria that are impossible to fulfill.
No, they're easy to fulfill if examples exist, and they're precisely the heart of the matter.
And can you please answer the question: do you think that innocent people, defined by your criteria, are NEVER executed? Really? Never? Go ahead, say it plainly and clearly and see how it sounds: "Innocent people, as defined by my criteria, have never, are never, and will never be executed." Go on, say it. We all need a good laugh.
Innocent people, as defined by my criteria, have never, are never, and will never be executed.
If you didn't commit a serious crime, and you're accused of it, here's a crazy idea: tell the truth.
Don't cover for Uncle Mikey. Don't change your story. Tell your story to the jury. Tell your defense lawyer everything.
I'm aware of all of that, intimately. I wasn't claiming that Wii bowling, or any of the Wii Sports games *currently* uses the sensor bar (except for the pointer when selecting). I was simply saying that to implement a Wiisaber, you could do what Wii baseball currently does, and *supplement* it with IR light data to get horizontal orientation.
Do you REALLY not see how ridiculous your criteria are?
No, I can't. When someone says "the death penalty may snare innocent people", they're insinuating that it puts ordinary, innocent people, like me, at risk. Failing to meet those criteria would refute that.
"Possibly innocent" won't cut it, I'm afraid. "Exonerated" won't either. In a lot of the cases the accused confesses, or helped cover up the crime. For me to be afraid of being wrongfully executed, I have to be afraid that I would be executed, even if I did everything in the list. Yeah, it sounds cold, but it's hard for me to feel sorry for someone who got executed, when he "merely" covered up the crime, or "merely" misled the police as to who the killer was.
And your question was already answered.
... like, you know, I just said?
...
And that answer was already refuted.
If the works that Disney derived from would have been protected by copyright,
The works Disney derived from *could not* have been protected by copyright, especially a reasonable system. He was making works based on folk tales that had long been passed down with no definable owner, and only vaguely borrowed from them.
me: It's not provable in the mathematical sense, but given that the artists preferred not to use the non-copyright method that was available to them, and did require significant financial investment, it is unreasonable to think otherwise.
you: Please explain why that is unreasonable.
Um, maybe because "given that the artists preferred not to use the non-copyright method that was available to them, and did require significant financial investment"
And, as I detailed back toward where I came in, having copyright does not interfere with those who don't want to use it, so by having copyright, we get strictly more.
It may SEEM unreasonable to you because of the envvironment you are living in, the things you are used to
Oh, give me a break! I'm the last person this objection is warranted for. I accept that there are innovative ideas that will appear in the future and change everything, that we can't anticipate today. I'm the one always lecturing people on the dangers of static thinking and the possibility of unforseen new methods. I'm the one who actually hates the terms "paycheck" and "paystub" since they assume an obsolete item. (e.g., You can get direct deposit rather than having to go to a bank yourself to depsit a checkable note. I prefer "pay" or "payment" and "pay record" respectively.) I'm the one currently compiling a paper that details new, as-of-yet unused ways to profit from intellectual works without IP (and have much better ideas for inventions than artistic works.)
However, the "current way" has long incorporated alternate, copyright-free revenue models, and none has been powerful enough to make copyright models obsolete. No one, including you, describe, even in the most general terms, how such a method would work. I can of course understand why you can't tell me *exactly* how it would work, but not even at an abstract level? Give me something to contradict my claim, anything. But remember as long as copyright can provide better compensation, that means it will lead to some works that wouldn't have existed otherwise and that people would volutarily part with their own money to see.
Well, about the death penalty:
I believe that people who are innocent of the capital crime of which they are accused, will be inevitably executed.
I do not believe the people who are innocent of the capital crime of which they accused AND:
a) cooperated with the police
b) did not confess to the crime
c) took the witness stand at trial
d) did not commit any other capital crimes
e) cooperated in their defense at trial
f) are in a country with an independent judiciary
g) did not assist in the crime
h) had DNA tests done
will inevitably be executed. Counter-examples are welcome.
In the original, or the follow-ups?
If you mean the original, I'm really really sorry for acting like I have a following. See here for why I did it.
If you mean the follow-ups, well, let's just say that in real life, anyone who's going to ignore half of what I say, will probably just go ahead and interrupt me mid-spiel so they can claim ignorance at least. Though I have been in situations like this:
them: So when's the wedding again?
me: Next week, on Saturday.
them: You mean this coming Saturday, or next week on Saturday?
me: Next week, on Saturday.
them: okay, thanks for clarifying that.
I think over time I've just gotten more bitter about people who ignore what I say.
That's what I thought, but I couldn't be sure from your wording since a lot of people don't know how to use grammer properly. I didn't want to put words in your mouth by assuming that you intended to say one thing or another, so I just pointed out that a counterexample exists depending on your intention. As a note, the example you provided in the original post really didn't convey the general idea that you describe in this one. ...
I agree I could have explained that better, but in my defense, many of the responses looked like people hadn't bothered reading anything beyond that sentence. See this one and especially this one.
Anyway, that was mostly just semantics. As for the car question, it seems like you are basically arguing for a free market where most (or maybe even all?) externalities are accounted for and figured into the pricing of applicable goods and services. Is that correct? If so, do you extend this model to most other markets or just energy?
I wouldn't say "all". It should be significantly more than the cost of detecting and enforcing them. You don't want a situation where e.g. if you wear cologne you have to pay a nickel to every fourth person because they don't like the smell. And the justification for doing it with C02 is not that it involves energy but that it could e.g. lead to flooding. I'd want the same thing for pollution. As for how much? Trillion dollar question there. I'd say the minimum of a) the minimum possible "undoing" costs (no that wasn't a redundancy) and b) enough to barely return victims to their "indifference curve" (i.e., they are about indifferent between [1] no payment, no pollution, and [2] payment and pollution). b) encourages people to inflate their victimhood, so you could make them honest through an indifference vote. That is, they bid how much they'd pay not to have the externality, and the e.g. polluter bids how much they'd pay for the right to it, and occastionally, if the former is greater, the victims have to pay.
(I emphasize that this is for thinly-spread externalities; if someone simply dumps waste onto someone's property, they should have to pay cleanup costs and other compensation, regardless.)
*sigh*
me: But as long as there exist artistic works that would not be made but for some kind of copyright, we're better off having copyright laws.
you: Why ?
my answer from a post that you didn't read: The method he's described is possible with and without copyright. But as long as there exist artistic works that would not be made but for some kind of copyright, we're better off having copyright laws. Then we get artists profiting through the method he's described, AND the work that requires copyright.
Incidentally, I said the same thing the following sentence of the post you originally responded to, but you didn't realize it was related to the answer.
you: You need to justify your implications that a) only better works are created due to the existence of copyright
This is justified above in the previous argument that with OR without copyright, people will do the things that don't need copyright to encourage them to do, but with copyright, we get the things that don't, and those that do -- strictly more.
you: [that] b) those better works, on the whole, outweigh the negative impact of copyright.
*What* negative impact of copyright? It is your obligation to list one. Before you freak about this question, try to read the whole discussion this time so I don't have to hold your hand through it again. I pointed out how all examples were either a) poor implementaion of copyright (extremely excessive terms, no fair use) or b) ultimately a form of "I couldn't infringe on work that required copyrgith to exist".
I'd appreciate not having to repeat myself to the undeserving again.
How about reading back to where I came into the thread, where I answered all of that?
How does the law make living in a large house with CFLs less penalized, or a small apartment with incandescents more penalized? In either case, when you go out to buy a light bulb to replace one that burnt out, you need to buy a CFL.
What I meant was, filling my small apartment with incandescents would be *illegal* (and fined or whatever) while merely wasting a lot more energy by having a large house with CFL's would not be.
Considering that this thread started on a point pertaining to "copyright laws as they exist now", not necessarily whether copyright laws should exist at all, who's wasting whose time?
The point I responded to in the original parent's post, applied to all copyright, not just some idiosyncracy of the current law, as did most of the points in the original responses.
And I'd really an answer to the question at the end of my post; I want to learn how to avoid making people think I believe the opposite of what I say.
And I actually provided such a reason (that most of the public domain works that Walt Disney used derivatively to build his media empire would not be PD under today's laws, which ironically were largely sponsored by Disney), which you seem to have ignored.
I didn't ignore it; this fact simply didn't contradict any claim I made. You have shown that a public domain should exist. I don't dispute this. The only thing I was claiming was that there should be *some* copyright over *some* period.
I would take exception to both of your "givens". Remember, copyright is automatic to all creative works;
It is, currently; it is not necessarily part of copyright as such.
a "non-copyright method", OTOH, requires specific action on the part of the creator to release his work under some alternative licensing scheme. So to claim any artist who does not choose the latter deliberate path to the former automatic path prefers the legal default is specious.
No, claiming that adding "this work is in the public domain" adds non-trivial effort for the artist, is specious.
Nor do all or even most copyrighted works "require significant financial investment". This post, upon creation, is a copyrighted work, but I can assure you the financial investment is minimal. So I would submit that the vast majority of copyrighted works *would* be created whether copyright protections exist or not.
Torch that strawman all you want; it's not necessary to demonstrate that some works need no copyright incentive for copyright to be justified. All that's necessary is that there be *some* noteworthy works that wouldn't be produced without.
That said, I will agree that there are many great works that would likely not have been created without *some* sort of protection,
Oh, good. So I guess you agree in some kind of copyright but have been wasting our time?
but you seem to be saying that this is *always* the case, which I would deem unreasonable.
Considering that contradicts everything I believe and every claim I've ever made here, please show me exactly where you got the idea I thought this.
You did know that in the US and most nations, copyright is automatic?
Yes.
What does that have to do with anything?
Of course, it is impossible to prove that something that does not exist would exist under some other conditions.
Hm. You make a good point. How about this: I'll simply ask for a reason why something *could* exist without copyright, but not with copyright.
Oh, wait, I already did that before you jumped in with your insights!
I'll even say that the opposite, the claim that a given copyrighted work would not exist except for copyright, is just as unprovable.
It's not provable in the mathematical sense, but given that the artists preferred not to use the non-copyright method that was available to them, and did require significant financial investment, it is unreasonable to think otherwise.
For the record, I consider at least this post from a critic to be reasonable.
First, I have to say that I don't think this is always true, but then again I don't think you are really claiming that it is true in every instance. If you think it is, it's easy to provide a counterexample.
Correct. But my point was more general: they will put that savings *somewhere*. Maybe they'll invest it, and which facilitates a corporation using more energy than they would have. Maybe they'll apply it to the vacation fund, and take one more than they would have. The point is, if you *just* suppress one instance of energy use, without changing the incentive structure that contributes to carbon emissions, all you're doing is:
a) swapping out one waste for another
b) pissing off a bunch of people, including those with unambiguously important uses for incandescents
c) forgoing significant tax revenues that could be working toward a solution.
It really burns me how, I, the guy using ~300 kwh per month while using incandescents and living in a small apartment, am being scapegoated for the energy consumption of Mr. and Mrs. Howmuchamonth in their giant suburban home.
Beyond that, I'm wondering if you feel the same way about this when it comes to car emissions. I can see how the same argument applies, but I have doubts about it due to things like the availability of cars with good gas mileage. I guess I'm wondering if you think that car manufacturers shouldn't have to make fuel efficient cars. I agree that if someone wants to buy a car that eats gas, they should be able to, but I also think that American car makers wouldn't make fuel efficient options without some restrictions.
I do carry the same reasoning over. They *should not* have to make fuel efficient cars, but if gasoline is adequately priced to include externalities, that would (let's assume) make gasoline very expensive, probably enough that it becomes major factor in what car to buy, and it would make economic sense to sell. That, or driving is expensive to begin with and people build lives around not having to drive so often.
Of course, the bigger problem is the overuse of roads, which are underpriced and deserve the same solutions. See my last joural entry.
If it's about autistics, I was simply referring to people who are sensitive to certain kinds of light, and yes, fluorescent bothers some people enough to give them headaches. I simply listed autistics as an example, even though it's certainly not exclusive to them, nor universal to them.
... what? Every photo studio I know lights with incandescents. Plus, their bulbs.
About photographers
If that's his point, then those appear to be problems with a) limitations on fair use, and b) the lack of a reliable way of knowing, NOT with copyright as such.
Certainly, copyright should not attach unless specifically asserted, so later artists can know, and fair use should exist. But that doesn't address the larger matter of whether some kind of copyright should exist at all.
Actually... I think a lot of people - the dozen or so replied to you understood your point -
No, they didn't. Their posts were mostly non-responsive, and seem to have only applied if my post had ended at the second or third paragraph.
and to a tee most people disagree with you.
Most people were *upset* by my post, but to disagree, they have to know what it says.
Interesting how fiercely you started bashing them.
Right. When someone (like you) ignores everything I say and responds to something I didn't, my next response could be characterized as "fierce bashing".
We all see the point you made.. it's wrong. Human nature in general will not mean 100% of the citizens in Australia will now light their homes 24 hours per day to make up for the missed opportunity to consume energy.
And that wasn't my point, so I guess you now admit you didn't see it.
Somewhere some of them will actually reduce consumption... so it's a pretty nifty idea - yet too bad it has to come to government regulation.
Here's where you mess up:
They have to reduce consumption OR cancel the effects of their consumption. And if they do cut their consumption, we have to calculate the efficiency. It would cut consumption to turn all lights off all the time, but is that the best way to conserve? No. And if there is government regulation, does it have to be of the form of *banning* certain things, or merely putting the appopropriate price on them.
See, these are all little "nuances" that went right over your head. Can you start to see why I'm getting the impression you didn't bother to actually read my posts before responding?
*sigh*
Apparently, that little bit set off quite a firestorm. Let me try to explain.
Some people talk about the same topic a lot and say the same things, and this results in them being the butt of jokes. For example, on a story about money, someone said "Cue dada21 griping about the end of the gold standard in 3...2...". Hah, hah.
When I made that remark, I was simply acknowledging that I've said this stuff before, so as to pre-empt someone else pointing it out. That's it. I wasn't trying to artificially inflate the merit of my arguments, or act like a celebrity, or anything like that. The link to my own post from before was simply to allow people who were interested to get a better elaboration of what I meant by "input vs. output methods".
Can we put this to rest now?
When you state something, you can be asked to back it up with some kind of argument or even provide some kind of proof.
I appreciate the lesson in rhetoric.
However, the claim in question -- that there exist artistic works that are not produced because of copyright -- was the only unreasonable claim here that was lacking proof. (Remember, "I can't create a derivative of this copyrighted work" is not an argument -- that work only existed because of copyright.) I've covered my bases.
And I didn't even ask for proof, I just asked for an example to show why that would happen.
I am simply open-minded to all this talk.
No, you're not. You're really, really not. When you accuse someone who proposed an alternate method of controlling carbon emissions and their impacts, of:
a) denying the existence of global warming
b) being a smoking-cancer link denier
c) saying the government should do nothing
d) believing that it would be such a bad thing to harm the environment less
and that person didn't do any of those things, you are not being "open minded". You are close-mindedly refusing to listen to what he has to say, and pigeonholing him so that you don't have to consider his views.
Now, try to live up to the "open-minded" label this time, and actually read my original post again. It's fun. It's like being open-minded, except without lying about it this time.