You misunderstand me. You're saying we need a "cultural attitude" against piracy. I am saying that such an attitude would also undermine the very people who tend to complain about piracy. The middle men like the RIAA are just as guilty as ripping anyone off as the pirates.
Whether getting rid the cartels will have any effect on piracy is doubtful, but to act like the pirates are the only ones doing bad is simple hypocrisy. Just because one side has the favor of the law doesn't make them more morally acceptable.
"There needs to be both a positive cultural attitude towards supporting creators, and a cultural stigma against ripping them off."
Alright. When we get rid of the cartels like the RIAA and MPAA, I will consider not pirating as much. After all, those organizations rip off not only their own artists, but every other artist in their field who decides not to be beholden to them.
I think that's fair; just don't ask the pirates to be the first to act.
"All or nothing" means anarchy or totalitarianism. I'd say it's a false dichotomy. The problem isn't that people don't understand "it's all or nothing" (because it's not), but that people are apathetic to any problem that isn't theirs. In the US especially, we only care about our own problems and yet are very easily manipulated to intrude on other people's private lives. It is perfectly acceptable to cry about how your freedoms are being somehow harmed ("oh god they're removing my freedom of religion by separating church and state!") while mounting crusades against the freedoms of others ("gays don't deserve to be married, it'll harm us all!"). When it comes right down to it, the problem America has is ultimately a total lack of perspective on anything, even our own opinions.
Yet somehow, the rest of the world is still better off, even though they have so many more regulations. I wonder - should we go right for the root cause and stop letting politicians be bought by the highest bidder? That might help a little.
of a small tiny irrational change rolling unstoppably into complete immorality or complete anarchy or suffocating fascism or extreme religious fundamentalism or whatever fringe you want
The most obvious example that requires no other explanation (although puts me at danger of "Godwin!") would of course be the election of the Nazi Party in Germany. While they seemed just a LITTLE extreme, and the countries around Germany at the time thought them largely harmless, it was simply the first tiny step in the direction of utter horror. I could go back even farther on that same topic, but I'd prefer to start there since it is easily related to.
Or, how about the opposite direction. The Soviet Union began to liberalize. The media was made free(r). Many claimed it would lead to the downfall of the Soviet Union. Turns out they were right.
because it doesn't exist. because it assumes that human beings aren't capable of thinking rationally. but they are. so you can't give a society a tiny push, and it slides inexorably into the far reaches of dystopia or medievalism or whatever
Martin Luther (the German Protestant) might beg to differ on that matter. The reformation might have happened eventually anyway, but it is undebatable that it was set off when it was by an act as simple as posting a letter in a public forum. Had he not done so, maybe the pope would have died before the reformation began - and maybe the next pope would have took steps to prevent it. It is all historical guessing, of course, but I gave you what you asked for: one tiny act directly leading to total social upheaval.
Your arguments fail to account for the fact that small acts often DO have wide reaching consequences, often unintended, sometimes unforeseen.
so i will properly rule out your assertion by making my qualification more limiting: no small change, rational or irrational, will uncontrollably slide into the far reaches of radical social change. it simply doesn't happen
It seems you keep moving the bar more distant from what the concept you are arguing against states. I would consider any argument on the level of "if we raise gas taxes by 1%, the entire world will descend into chaos" as being out there and rather brainless. It doesn't explain a means that it could happen and the cause seems largely unrelated to the effect. That does not mean, though, that ALL arguments of that form are automatically wrong. Could a small change lead to a bigger change? Could the tiniest change set off some social timebomb? Certainly - history proves it many times over.
the slipperly slope argument is not reality, it is a fearmongering tool and no more, and you need to stop positing as if it is somehow real. the slippery slope is bullshit
You haven't made one point that was not easily dispatched. I don't think you're in much of a position to be closing with sweeping claims.
I have already replied to a lot of that in my other posts, but you bring up one point I did not quite hit.
For me to personally consider some action a slippery slope, I have to think the initial move is bad. If it is a good move that could lead to bad moves, it is some other issue entirely. Think of it this way; is it really a concern whether or not the slope is slippery, if you're already sliding down in another direction and are simply trying to reach the top of the mountain?
as soon as you prove to me that making a rational argument (gay marriage will not hurt society) will somehow magically make people vulnerable to irrational arguments (necrophilia is the same thing as gay marriage), then you have proven that the slippery slope is real
Except I never said that, nor does the concept of a slippery slope imply that. The fact people believe something does not make it true; you are implying that on some level, the argument "gay marriage will not hurt society" is wrong. If it indeed was wrong, then the above statement could be correct in some way. For example: "if we let people shoot guns whenever they like, at whatever they like, then some bystander might get shot." This is an entirely reasonable assumption. The idea that gay marriage will lead to necrophilia is not. I will reiterate: it is a perfectly reasonable argument if used right, and a perfectly irrational one if abused.
The slippery slope is when you start with an irrational idea and enact change based on it. Why? Because you overcame the energy requirement to make some change in the law by means of pure emotion and outrage. Once you do it once, it can happen again, and again... until, eventually, you reach the farthest point possible before other people begin to lash out. See my other post for a better explanation of that process and the fact it's not always apparent where it will lead.
but making a rational decision does not make you somehow vulnerable to irrational decisions. if you make a decision that changes the status quo (allowing gay marriage), you are not introducing some sort of strange runaway unstoppable acceleration of social change that will just speed up and go off a cliff into harems, legal pedophilia, and men marrying their horses. no, this is complete fearmongering bullshit
repeat: rational change does not mean you accelerate into irrational change. it simply doesn't work that way
I agree. Bolded emphasis. However, if it isn't a rational decision to start with, all bets are off.
i'm saying what doesn't exist is this idea that a sober, reasonable, small, incremental, rational change... will somehow lead to a runaway chain reaction into irrational change. it's this linking of rational change with irrational change that i am saying is complete fearmongering bullshit, and why the slippery slope does not exist
I think it is possible that my original post has been misinterpreted as being in support of some argument (which whoever I posted to was arguing against by calling a "fallacy"). In truth I was just posting to clarify that the slippery slope is not always a fallacy, but is often abused and made into one. It seems we agree on this point, for the most part.
It's a reasonable assumption to make, if you think about it. As I said, every step in the direction is likely to be just as much of a net difference in the status quo as the initial difference. That means that once you are willing to make the first step, the later ones become incredibly more likely to be taken.
That is not to say that ANY step in ANY direction will invariably and inevitably lead to a total move in that direction. Really, I don't think anyone could actually believe that, as it runs entirely counter to reason. If it were true, we'd constantly be shifting back and forth between extremes.
More realistically, systems tend to reach equilibrium at some point. Those for and those against will end up canceling each other out. The problem is that once some systems (like the government) start moving, they can actually force the equilibrium away. That also ignores the complicated social factors involved in this sort of thing. Sometimes, while people might oppose something very strongly, they are kept from balancing the system by some means. Think of the drug, terrorist, and pedophile crusades.
So while one step in a direction won't lead to the eventual reaching of some extreme, it can lead to massive changes.
In the end, I think the real question should be why society should take some step in an undesirable direction to begin with.
Another of these silly games that I REALLY hate is Occam's Razor (at least as used in practice) . It's frustrating to have someone wave that stupid banner, when the "simplest explanation" is as much a matter of opinion as the original point of contention.
Many forget the actual premise of Occam's Razor. It states that unnecessary complexity is a flaw. That means that the theory that explains some observation and makes the least number of assumptions (my personal modification: has the lowest magnitude of assumptions) is probably right. If you have two theories that equally explain the situation, but one requires some leap of faith, then the one that does not is superior. Failing to understand this is why I often hear arguments in favor of creationism, claiming it is the "simplest explanation" when in fact it makes a huge, entirely unsubstantiated assumption. That's not even to talk about how it makes no useful predictions...
I agree fully that people who like to seem logical are usually just out to delude themselves. In fact, I personally think those who believe they are rational, while acting against any kind of recognizable logical process, are more dangerous than the obvious fools.
the point is, the slippery slope is a rhetorical piece of propaganda used by demagogues to scare people away from logic and reason. the slippery slope only works in a world where no one has any cognitivie faculties and can't tell the difference between gay marriage and bestiality, or marijuana and methamphetamine
I hope you realize that actually is, for the most part, this world. It is up to debate if people are too stupid to realize the differences or simply do not want to, but does it matter? It's likely a mix of both and in the end it only matters that we have to live with the consequences.
As I said, though, it can be misapplied, like any argument. Arguments against gay marriage imply that such a marriage is somehow less so than one between a man and a woman: if it is not so, then it is not a step in any direction to legalize it. If it isn't a step towards something, then it can't possibly be the start of a slippery slope. The idea gay marriage is inferior is a flawed premise which makes that specific argument invalid - but the larger idea of a slippery slope is still often valid.
Think of it as the old "garbage in, garbage out": I can say prolonged martial law is a step towards tyranny OR I can say that eating colorful jellybeans might encourage someone to get addicted to meth. One of these arguments is more reasonable than the other and it is not because of the process used in making it.
people CAN tell the difference, and DO tell the difference, and thus the slippery slope is fearmongering bullshit
Keep telling yourself that. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. I on the other hand will let the evidence speak for itself.
That may or may not be the case, but it is still tangential to the matter of whether cars should have alcohol detectors in them. Personally I think we need to give up cars almost entirely and learn to live outside of Suburbistan, but that is a much bigger social issue which won't be resolved any time soon.
#1 first offense doesn't mean the first time the person did it, only the first time they got caught
Wait wait wait. That reasoning is way too faulty. It assumes guilt worse than any argument I've ever seen on slashdot. You are saying people should be considered guilty of crimes not only not proven to have been committed, but which have not even been accused.
Please, go back to the middle ages where that kind of BS is tolerated.
From my perspective there is no line to draw, first time 5 years w/o a license, second time lose your license forever, period.
Which, in the United States, is more or less equivalent to a sentence of life in poverty with no chance of parole. Maybe that would work where driving was not required, but not everyone has the money to move to such a place if they are not already in one.
Rage on, though. These kind of neoprohibitionist arguments only weaken the movement.
The concept of a slippery slope is most certainly not a fallacy. It is a proven fact that people will react less negatively to many smaller changes than to a single large one, even if the end result is the same. Once the first step is taken, the next one becomes easier - often just as easy as the first one was. People naturally think relative to the status quo, so as long as a proposed change is small, they will ignore the fact it is a part of a (not so) slow march towards some bigger change.
Examples: copyright law, dictatorships seizing control, credit card debt ('but it's only a small monthly payment!'), the establishment of monopolies, change in social taboos, the slow gaining of rights for non-whites, surveillance and data collection... I could go on all day
The slippery slope argument can be a fallacy, but so can everything else if misused. To say it is a fallacy out of hand is, well... a fallacy.
So because lots of people buy it and don't return it, it is automatically better than other products? Wow. Microsoft Windows IS the best operating system on earth! PCs are the best devices!
"Apple's products aren't, in all respects, better than the competitors; what they are is more polished, more refined, and an order of magnitude easier to pick up on and figure out on your own."
Really? "Hold it wrong and lose the signal" doesn't scream "more polished, more refined, and an order of magnitude easier to pick up on" to me. But then, I am not subject to the RDF, so maybe I don't get it.
"In theory, I'd prefer the faceless corporations that I get to vote with my feet.
However, as has been reiterated many times on this thread already, there really isn't a choice to vote with your feet."
Seldom is it a choice. The only place where you have that option is in areas you do not need to consume the product; luxuries. This is because when you must consume a project, it is only a matter of time until the number of players decrease. Why? A single big company is more efficient than one small shop. Walmart buys enough that it can actually dictate prices from product manufacturers, so Walmart gets better prices than Tom's Appliances. People will eventually stop shopping at Tom's when they can buy more, cheaper, and faster at Walmart, so Tom's goes under. Once there are only a few major players, collusion is only a hop skip and jump away.
I say luxuries are an exception because, for one, you don't have to consume them. You cannot decide not to eat, but you can decide not to eat out. If all the restaurants in your town have caused you to "vote with your feet," then you can safely eat your own food... as long as Walmart hasn't price fixed it past the point you can afford it. Another factor is that people have more eclectic needs from luxuries. In addition to fulfilling a need, they often provide different levels of quality or different styles (Mexican, Chinese, fast food...), making it harder to form monumental companies providing everything.
It stands to reason then that the more important something becomes, the less we can afford to leave it to the free market. In the modern age, it is nearly impossible to live a productive, normal life without internet. Additionally, internet is tied to regional resources that can't be transferred easily, making it difficult for competitors to enter. There is a name for that: infrastructure. Let's join the civilized world and stop leaving our country's infrastructure up to those with the deepest pockets.
Oh yes, because copyright was NEVER abused on the republican's watch... but hey, let's play the "my party is better" game.
Sorry, you lost. The republicans got us into two endless wars, aided the copyright cartels, blew our banking industry... need I go on? No, the democrats aren't much better, but stop acting like your favored crooks are.
At the time the Rosetta Stone was discovered, there was no such thing as archeology. The knowledge of Egypt that existed at the time mostly came from Greek writings. Nobody really cared enough to go digging around, looking for something that might let them understand the Egyptian writings. People tried to translate Ancient Egyptian languages, because many artifacts made their way to more convenient locations like Paris, but that was only the most valuable artifacts. There could have been any number of Rosetta Stones holding up some goat herder's roof and nobody really noticed or cared.
The Rosetta Stone became a symbol not so much because of itself, but because of the events around it. Napoleon invaded Egypt and actually started digging for stuff. He is considered by many to be the first archaeologist. His scientists happened to find the Rosetta Stone. Being scientists for once, rather than grave robbers, they noticed it might be important and got the information to people who were trying to understand the languages on it. The linguists who looked at it used it to decipher the Ancient Egyptian languages.
So he probably didn't know, but not because he had no idea what might be important to the future. Simply, he had no crystal ball with which to determine a rather convoluted series of events in the far future.
And were it some small group of developers that SCO sued rather than Red Hat/Novell/IBM, it would have been worse than delayed justice. Copyright does not protect the little guy, much like the majority of our legal system.
"It's not an "outdated idea". If you really think that copyrights and patents are a bad idea, you need only look at countries where they did not exist -- like Russia during its peak of Socialist power -- to see how that works out economically. Hint: it doesn't. "
You're seriously assigning all the problems with the Soviet economy to their lack of copyright? You, sir, take the cake. That's the most absurd statement in support of copyright I have ever heard.
"The idea being that those who ignore (or don't know) their history, will be doomed to repeat it. And you obviously don't know your history, or I am about as certain as the sun will come up tomorrow that you would change your mind on that issue. "
Given your interpretation of the history of economics is rather... I'll be nice and say 'intriguing', I guess I have to agree that I don't know it. I don't see how the lack of copyright led to Stalin screwing the country over, but I guess I am just dense.
"The fact that some laws have been corrupted, like the duration of copyrights for example, is not justification for elimination of all such laws. Sure, it needs to put back the way it was, but not eliminated."
But the fact they are built on the concept of preventing free flow of information - and the fact they can no longer be enforced even by companies with more power than some countries - DOES make copyright and patents outdated. That ship has sailed.
"Copyrights and patents were established for the public good, and believe me, in the places where there are none, there is also damned little public good."
The entire world prior to about the 18th century begs to differ with you. On the other hand, I don't know history, so don't listen to me; nothing of merit was produced before copyright! The Greek epics, countless thousands of books, paintings, songs, architecture, machine designs, all came to exist about 300 years ago, right around the time copyright was invented. Not one before it was established. Thank you for setting the record straight!
Slashdot Mirror
You misunderstand me. You're saying we need a "cultural attitude" against piracy. I am saying that such an attitude would also undermine the very people who tend to complain about piracy. The middle men like the RIAA are just as guilty as ripping anyone off as the pirates.
Whether getting rid the cartels will have any effect on piracy is doubtful, but to act like the pirates are the only ones doing bad is simple hypocrisy. Just because one side has the favor of the law doesn't make them more morally acceptable.
"There needs to be both a positive cultural attitude towards supporting creators, and a cultural stigma against ripping them off."
Alright. When we get rid of the cartels like the RIAA and MPAA, I will consider not pirating as much. After all, those organizations rip off not only their own artists, but every other artist in their field who decides not to be beholden to them.
I think that's fair; just don't ask the pirates to be the first to act.
"Just following orders" is not an excuse to do evil. At every step in this debacle, there was a choice. Someone eventually made the right one.
"All or nothing" means anarchy or totalitarianism. I'd say it's a false dichotomy. The problem isn't that people don't understand "it's all or nothing" (because it's not), but that people are apathetic to any problem that isn't theirs. In the US especially, we only care about our own problems and yet are very easily manipulated to intrude on other people's private lives. It is perfectly acceptable to cry about how your freedoms are being somehow harmed ("oh god they're removing my freedom of religion by separating church and state!") while mounting crusades against the freedoms of others ("gays don't deserve to be married, it'll harm us all!"). When it comes right down to it, the problem America has is ultimately a total lack of perspective on anything, even our own opinions.
Yet somehow, the rest of the world is still better off, even though they have so many more regulations. I wonder - should we go right for the root cause and stop letting politicians be bought by the highest bidder? That might help a little.
The most obvious example that requires no other explanation (although puts me at danger of "Godwin!") would of course be the election of the Nazi Party in Germany. While they seemed just a LITTLE extreme, and the countries around Germany at the time thought them largely harmless, it was simply the first tiny step in the direction of utter horror. I could go back even farther on that same topic, but I'd prefer to start there since it is easily related to.
Or, how about the opposite direction. The Soviet Union began to liberalize. The media was made free(r). Many claimed it would lead to the downfall of the Soviet Union. Turns out they were right.
Martin Luther (the German Protestant) might beg to differ on that matter. The reformation might have happened eventually anyway, but it is undebatable that it was set off when it was by an act as simple as posting a letter in a public forum. Had he not done so, maybe the pope would have died before the reformation began - and maybe the next pope would have took steps to prevent it. It is all historical guessing, of course, but I gave you what you asked for: one tiny act directly leading to total social upheaval.
Your arguments fail to account for the fact that small acts often DO have wide reaching consequences, often unintended, sometimes unforeseen.
It seems you keep moving the bar more distant from what the concept you are arguing against states. I would consider any argument on the level of "if we raise gas taxes by 1%, the entire world will descend into chaos" as being out there and rather brainless. It doesn't explain a means that it could happen and the cause seems largely unrelated to the effect. That does not mean, though, that ALL arguments of that form are automatically wrong. Could a small change lead to a bigger change? Could the tiniest change set off some social timebomb? Certainly - history proves it many times over.
You haven't made one point that was not easily dispatched. I don't think you're in much of a position to be closing with sweeping claims.
I have already replied to a lot of that in my other posts, but you bring up one point I did not quite hit.
For me to personally consider some action a slippery slope, I have to think the initial move is bad. If it is a good move that could lead to bad moves, it is some other issue entirely. Think of it this way; is it really a concern whether or not the slope is slippery, if you're already sliding down in another direction and are simply trying to reach the top of the mountain?
Except I never said that, nor does the concept of a slippery slope imply that. The fact people believe something does not make it true; you are implying that on some level, the argument "gay marriage will not hurt society" is wrong. If it indeed was wrong, then the above statement could be correct in some way. For example: "if we let people shoot guns whenever they like, at whatever they like, then some bystander might get shot." This is an entirely reasonable assumption. The idea that gay marriage will lead to necrophilia is not. I will reiterate: it is a perfectly reasonable argument if used right, and a perfectly irrational one if abused.
The slippery slope is when you start with an irrational idea and enact change based on it. Why? Because you overcame the energy requirement to make some change in the law by means of pure emotion and outrage. Once you do it once, it can happen again, and again... until, eventually, you reach the farthest point possible before other people begin to lash out. See my other post for a better explanation of that process and the fact it's not always apparent where it will lead.
I agree. Bolded emphasis. However, if it isn't a rational decision to start with, all bets are off.
I think it is possible that my original post has been misinterpreted as being in support of some argument (which whoever I posted to was arguing against by calling a "fallacy"). In truth I was just posting to clarify that the slippery slope is not always a fallacy, but is often abused and made into one. It seems we agree on this point, for the most part.
It's a reasonable assumption to make, if you think about it. As I said, every step in the direction is likely to be just as much of a net difference in the status quo as the initial difference. That means that once you are willing to make the first step, the later ones become incredibly more likely to be taken.
That is not to say that ANY step in ANY direction will invariably and inevitably lead to a total move in that direction. Really, I don't think anyone could actually believe that, as it runs entirely counter to reason. If it were true, we'd constantly be shifting back and forth between extremes.
More realistically, systems tend to reach equilibrium at some point. Those for and those against will end up canceling each other out. The problem is that once some systems (like the government) start moving, they can actually force the equilibrium away. That also ignores the complicated social factors involved in this sort of thing. Sometimes, while people might oppose something very strongly, they are kept from balancing the system by some means. Think of the drug, terrorist, and pedophile crusades.
So while one step in a direction won't lead to the eventual reaching of some extreme, it can lead to massive changes.
In the end, I think the real question should be why society should take some step in an undesirable direction to begin with.
Many forget the actual premise of Occam's Razor. It states that unnecessary complexity is a flaw. That means that the theory that explains some observation and makes the least number of assumptions (my personal modification: has the lowest magnitude of assumptions) is probably right. If you have two theories that equally explain the situation, but one requires some leap of faith, then the one that does not is superior. Failing to understand this is why I often hear arguments in favor of creationism, claiming it is the "simplest explanation" when in fact it makes a huge, entirely unsubstantiated assumption. That's not even to talk about how it makes no useful predictions...
I agree fully that people who like to seem logical are usually just out to delude themselves. In fact, I personally think those who believe they are rational, while acting against any kind of recognizable logical process, are more dangerous than the obvious fools.
I hope you realize that actually is, for the most part, this world. It is up to debate if people are too stupid to realize the differences or simply do not want to, but does it matter? It's likely a mix of both and in the end it only matters that we have to live with the consequences.
As I said, though, it can be misapplied, like any argument. Arguments against gay marriage imply that such a marriage is somehow less so than one between a man and a woman: if it is not so, then it is not a step in any direction to legalize it. If it isn't a step towards something, then it can't possibly be the start of a slippery slope. The idea gay marriage is inferior is a flawed premise which makes that specific argument invalid - but the larger idea of a slippery slope is still often valid.
Think of it as the old "garbage in, garbage out": I can say prolonged martial law is a step towards tyranny OR I can say that eating colorful jellybeans might encourage someone to get addicted to meth. One of these arguments is more reasonable than the other and it is not because of the process used in making it.
Keep telling yourself that. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. I on the other hand will let the evidence speak for itself.
That may or may not be the case, but it is still tangential to the matter of whether cars should have alcohol detectors in them. Personally I think we need to give up cars almost entirely and learn to live outside of Suburbistan, but that is a much bigger social issue which won't be resolved any time soon.
Wait wait wait. That reasoning is way too faulty. It assumes guilt worse than any argument I've ever seen on slashdot. You are saying people should be considered guilty of crimes not only not proven to have been committed, but which have not even been accused.
Please, go back to the middle ages where that kind of BS is tolerated.
Which, in the United States, is more or less equivalent to a sentence of life in poverty with no chance of parole. Maybe that would work where driving was not required, but not everyone has the money to move to such a place if they are not already in one.
Rage on, though. These kind of neoprohibitionist arguments only weaken the movement.
The concept of a slippery slope is most certainly not a fallacy. It is a proven fact that people will react less negatively to many smaller changes than to a single large one, even if the end result is the same. Once the first step is taken, the next one becomes easier - often just as easy as the first one was. People naturally think relative to the status quo, so as long as a proposed change is small, they will ignore the fact it is a part of a (not so) slow march towards some bigger change.
Examples: copyright law, dictatorships seizing control, credit card debt ('but it's only a small monthly payment!'), the establishment of monopolies, change in social taboos, the slow gaining of rights for non-whites, surveillance and data collection... I could go on all day
The slippery slope argument can be a fallacy, but so can everything else if misused. To say it is a fallacy out of hand is, well... a fallacy.
So because lots of people buy it and don't return it, it is automatically better than other products? Wow. Microsoft Windows IS the best operating system on earth! PCs are the best devices!
Be careful of flawed reasoning. It can backfire.
"Apple's products aren't, in all respects, better than the competitors; what they are is more polished, more refined, and an order of magnitude easier to pick up on and figure out on your own."
Really? "Hold it wrong and lose the signal" doesn't scream "more polished, more refined, and an order of magnitude easier to pick up on" to me. But then, I am not subject to the RDF, so maybe I don't get it.
"In theory, I'd prefer the faceless corporations that I get to vote with my feet.
However, as has been reiterated many times on this thread already, there really isn't a choice to vote with your feet."
Seldom is it a choice. The only place where you have that option is in areas you do not need to consume the product; luxuries. This is because when you must consume a project, it is only a matter of time until the number of players decrease. Why? A single big company is more efficient than one small shop. Walmart buys enough that it can actually dictate prices from product manufacturers, so Walmart gets better prices than Tom's Appliances. People will eventually stop shopping at Tom's when they can buy more, cheaper, and faster at Walmart, so Tom's goes under. Once there are only a few major players, collusion is only a hop skip and jump away.
I say luxuries are an exception because, for one, you don't have to consume them. You cannot decide not to eat, but you can decide not to eat out. If all the restaurants in your town have caused you to "vote with your feet," then you can safely eat your own food... as long as Walmart hasn't price fixed it past the point you can afford it. Another factor is that people have more eclectic needs from luxuries. In addition to fulfilling a need, they often provide different levels of quality or different styles (Mexican, Chinese, fast food...), making it harder to form monumental companies providing everything.
It stands to reason then that the more important something becomes, the less we can afford to leave it to the free market. In the modern age, it is nearly impossible to live a productive, normal life without internet. Additionally, internet is tied to regional resources that can't be transferred easily, making it difficult for competitors to enter. There is a name for that: infrastructure. Let's join the civilized world and stop leaving our country's infrastructure up to those with the deepest pockets.
Treason.
Violation of the constitution on that level is nothing short of treason.
Oh yes, because copyright was NEVER abused on the republican's watch... but hey, let's play the "my party is better" game.
Sorry, you lost. The republicans got us into two endless wars, aided the copyright cartels, blew our banking industry... need I go on? No, the democrats aren't much better, but stop acting like your favored crooks are.
I studied things I was passionate about and fascinated by before I went to college. Now I have less time to do that, what with all the college...
I think you're confusing the HR sorting algorithm with ability to do the job.
You must not read idle.
The Rosetta Stone wasn't that special, though.
At the time the Rosetta Stone was discovered, there was no such thing as archeology. The knowledge of Egypt that existed at the time mostly came from Greek writings. Nobody really cared enough to go digging around, looking for something that might let them understand the Egyptian writings. People tried to translate Ancient Egyptian languages, because many artifacts made their way to more convenient locations like Paris, but that was only the most valuable artifacts. There could have been any number of Rosetta Stones holding up some goat herder's roof and nobody really noticed or cared.
The Rosetta Stone became a symbol not so much because of itself, but because of the events around it. Napoleon invaded Egypt and actually started digging for stuff. He is considered by many to be the first archaeologist. His scientists happened to find the Rosetta Stone. Being scientists for once, rather than grave robbers, they noticed it might be important and got the information to people who were trying to understand the languages on it. The linguists who looked at it used it to decipher the Ancient Egyptian languages.
So he probably didn't know, but not because he had no idea what might be important to the future. Simply, he had no crystal ball with which to determine a rather convoluted series of events in the far future.
And were it some small group of developers that SCO sued rather than Red Hat/Novell/IBM, it would have been worse than delayed justice. Copyright does not protect the little guy, much like the majority of our legal system.
"It's not an "outdated idea". If you really think that copyrights and patents are a bad idea, you need only look at countries where they did not exist -- like Russia during its peak of Socialist power -- to see how that works out economically. Hint: it doesn't. "
You're seriously assigning all the problems with the Soviet economy to their lack of copyright? You, sir, take the cake. That's the most absurd statement in support of copyright I have ever heard.
"The idea being that those who ignore (or don't know) their history, will be doomed to repeat it. And you obviously don't know your history, or I am about as certain as the sun will come up tomorrow that you would change your mind on that issue. "
Given your interpretation of the history of economics is rather... I'll be nice and say 'intriguing', I guess I have to agree that I don't know it. I don't see how the lack of copyright led to Stalin screwing the country over, but I guess I am just dense.
"The fact that some laws have been corrupted, like the duration of copyrights for example, is not justification for elimination of all such laws. Sure, it needs to put back the way it was, but not eliminated."
But the fact they are built on the concept of preventing free flow of information - and the fact they can no longer be enforced even by companies with more power than some countries - DOES make copyright and patents outdated. That ship has sailed.
"Copyrights and patents were established for the public good, and believe me, in the places where there are none, there is also damned little public good."
The entire world prior to about the 18th century begs to differ with you. On the other hand, I don't know history, so don't listen to me; nothing of merit was produced before copyright! The Greek epics, countless thousands of books, paintings, songs, architecture, machine designs, all came to exist about 300 years ago, right around the time copyright was invented. Not one before it was established. Thank you for setting the record straight!