You're partially right (which is more grace than you're giving me), but there still needs to be some resource involved, be it tangible or intangible. My point was that the work and time put in by artists were the resource making the work valuable. Of course, after that, the valuer modifies the value, based on what they want. If it indeed took no resources and anyone with or without their own resources could produce their own alternative product, then why would anyone pay anything for it?
In reality, everyone CAN make an alternative, unlike scarce physical property.
In reality, everyone can in theory make an alternative. Whether or not you have the skill, or the time, or the money to make that alternative is another matter. Oh, you were talking about straight copying, right? Well, then almost everyone can make an "alternative", thus there is a lack of scarcity of art, thus no-one should be willing to pay for it, thus art should shrivel and die. Happy?
And yet everyone would and could, and already does, copy far more for free then they themselves produce. Everyone is far richer because of copying.
"Everyone" (obviously excluding the artists who put work into their art) is only very slightly richer from copying, since what they hold, everyone else holds as well. Sooner or later, without copyright, market demand will start to reflect that fact, and there will be no incentive to supply art (which would be a shame).
So you are AGREEING that artists are fraudulently claiming copyright upon elements that are clearly public domain?
Not any more so than I agree that you fraudulently take money that clearly belongs to the bank whenever you take out a loan. We lend artists the rights to use inspiration from the public domain, or works that have been created indirectly from the public domain, as long as they, after a certain amount of time, give back their works, so that both the public domain and the artist can profit from the exchange. Your solution is as extreme as unlimited copyright. Your view completely deprives the artist, and theirs completely deprives the public domain.
Don't stop now. You are doing so well. Continue being a hypocrite and give us some more FREE entertaining for morons content by spending effort writing posts.
I guess I'll just have to take it upon your word that I'm a hypocrite, since you've provided absolutely no examples or justification for that statement. But sure, I'll continue being a "hypocrite" (do we even define "hypocrite" the same way?) for anyone else who wants to produce cherry-picked, out-of-context economic principles, and prove that art shouldn't exist. After all it's only fair after you've provided me with such a riotous laugh.
Ah, I failed to make the distinction between theft and stealing. I meant the latter, and as it seems, so do many other Slashdotters when they say copyright (or any other IP) infringement is not theft.
Bzzzt. For starters, you can't "steal" real property...
Wow. You're completely right. I hadn't really thought about it before, but you're right: property is intangible. It really takes a lot of the sting out of the "IP infringement is not theft" argument. Thank you, I'll remember that one.
If I steal your piece of real property, you don't have it anymore. If I "steal" your so-called "IP," you still have it.
Yes, but it's devalued. You have it for free, I worked hard to create it. You can also steal from my bank account. I still have my bank account, it's just been devalued.
If you give me your "IP," total value doubles because we both have it, and are thus twice as likely to create derivative works. Sharing is synergistic.
No, the value is shared. Look it up. In economics, you simply can't create value. It has to come from some resource. The IP's value comes from the hard work that someone put into creating it. If everyone could make an alternative, then it would normally be worthless. Without copyright, that's exactly what would happen. In that case, the value would be shared overwhelmingly in favour of the pirated copies, because charging for the original would always be the inferior option for the consumer.
Real property is owned in perpetuity. Most types of "IP" expire, or in other words, revert back to their true "owner:" the Public Domain.
Public domain lends artists the building blocks to create artworks, and the artists eventually have to pay the public domain back so it can profit from it. Sure the public domain are the owners of what helps create artworks, but they don't have any ownership rights over it until the artist has had his share.
"IP" really is "imaginary." Legally speaking, there is no such thing. There are copyrights and patents and trademarks, but they are not similar enough to be spoken about under one umbrella term with any semblence of accuracy!
It's never been a legal term, but more a category or a concept. The main members of the category are all legally sanctioned. Just because it's not legally defined, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Hmm, don't rush out and buy it yet. This processor will only barely scrape the minimum system requirements for Windows 7 lower middle home basic word-processing and emailing edition. I'd wait for a little while longer.
Thank you for using the acronym for "imaginary property" rather than pretending that anything that's only in your head bears any resemblance to actual, real, concrete property.
How exactly doesn't intellectual property resemble "real" property? Certainly not legally, certainly not in terms of value and how it's traded, certainly not in terms of how it's earned (i.e. through working for it). So, how do they not resemble? Is it some reincarnation of the outdated "If I ain't able teh feel it, it don't exist" argument? Would you still hold the same belief about ownership of information after I distribute your credit card information, plus your home address, your social security number, etc, etc?
when I insult someone they will be left in no doubt they have been insulted.
Good to know, but I can't say the same about me. I prefer subtlety in my insults. Sure I could aim for the lowest common denominator in insults, but where's the fun in that? Besides, it's funny watching people who, despite the fact that I'm clearly being ironic and despite the replies I receive that recognise that, still take me at face value.
They were all guilty! We know they were all guilty! How? We just know!
Let's be fair here. Even though the FBI may not be able to prove it beyond reasonable doubt in court, they may have a pretty damn good idea that the person is guilty. They may well see it as their duty to subvert the courts. I'm not saying by any means that I condone it, I just also don't condone making strawmen out of your opponents. It tends to weaken your side of the argument
While I believe the RIAA is doing the right thing defending their IP, I must say I applaud the FSF for helping keep the judicial process fair and even. It's high time for this kind of intervention. I respect that the RIAA can't exactly fight full, drawn out battles against everyone, but this kind of abuse of the court system simply isn't justified. Sorry.
Well, I'm mostly satisfied with that reply, thank you. Just a couple of things:
I am sorry if you feel otherwise, but your position is in fact the very definition of passivity. Simply conforming for an increasingly totalitarian government and going on about your life is not quite my idea of being "active" with regard to the situation.
No, it really isn't. Passivity is when you see something seriously wrong and you decide to go with the flow. You haven't yet established that I see something wrong. My inaction may just spring from the fact that I generally agree with current policy on terrorism, and there's nothing I want changed.
My comment about the moderators-for-hire was about how non-conformist or non-passive ideologies often enough end up with the non-conformists expecting others to conform to their ideology. It's a strong double standard that I pick up on a lot on Slashdot.
People are increasingly unconcerned with politics and world affairs, so long as they have their high definition plasma televisions to watch football with, their overly-large SUVs, and are comfortably secluded within the walls of suburbia. Your original statement gave that impression.
I accept your apology. Let that be a lesson about guessing your opponent's opinions with little to nothing to go on.
The true false dichotomy is between "the terrorists" and the government.
Misdirection! There are false dichotomies on all sides. On one hand, you have the terrorists and the government, on the other you have the government and the people. Both of them are false, but I, in all fairness would have to say the former is less false, due to the fact that the latter parties physically overlap, whereas the government has absolutely no terrorists in it. But I get the point, the ideological dichotomy isn't exactly warranted. Still, there are people out there who want to kill me, call them terrorists or not, and I would like my government to do something about it.
You have less of a chance of being killed by terrorists than you do of winning the lottery.
I hear that one quite a bit, but it fails to take a few things into account:
Firstly, I care about other people. Even if you were to care about the lives of only people you know, that still multiplies the odds significantly.
Secondly, there are inconveniences associated with terrorist strikes. Buildings and possessions get destroyed, and someone has to pay for it. It raises insurance premiums, interest rates, it puts people out of business.
Thirdly, there's nothing to say that terrorist attacks won't increase if they detect weakness. Many of the security measures are designed to allay fears and psychologically discourage terrorists. Who can really say what'll happen if those measures go away?
Fourthly, and finally, despite the low odds of an attack happening, people feel scared by them. There's no sense of control in a terrorist strike for civilians. Only the government is in really any position to help counter them, since they can see and influence the big picture. I personally see nothing wrong, in a democracy, with addressing people's fears, even if they make little tangible benefit.
So there you go, we've broken past our derogatory and inflammatory jibes, and bared our opinions. I hope you found mine as well-reasoned and rational as I did yours.
Now, the government quickly goes and blows that heavy cash they steal from everyone as taxes
Paying taxes are completely 100% optional! You don't have to pay for our society, and society won't protect you! So, if the courts want to arrest you for no reason, they can because you don't own any part of them. They could, in theory, dress it up as "tax evasion", but if you consciously refuse to pay society's dues, it doesn't really matter what label they give it.
Oh what, you don't like protection money rackets? If only there were a group of people who could protect you from injustices like that...
You would rather live a coward than die a free man, then?
That statement's always funny coming from a paranoid liberal!
Do not attempt to raise an ideal higher than your personal interests.
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realise I was being so selfish when I preferred my life and the lives of everyone around me over your privacy (as well as everyone else's). Apparently, if I want something different from you for everyone else around me, I'm being selfish, but when you want it, it's being altruistic and brave.
Just keep being passive.
OK then. Whatever you and your moderators-for-hire say.
And remember: Consume, consume, consume! No one likes a louse, right?
WTF are you talking about? What the hell does consumerism have to do with terrorism? Why does concern for my fellow man's life make me a rabid consumer? Or did you make a false dichotomy between people who are with you and people who are against you? What's next, "mission accomplished"?
Absolutely, you're right. It's just that privacy is a kind of paranoia, and it's worthless if, in a purely hypothetical world, no-one was interested in using or remembering your information. But I don't think that the fact that the Government is trying to find out more about you is proof that they're out to get you. I especially don't think that the fact that the government collects certain encryption keys from privacy services is proof either. It's more like an overt act, rather than the crime itself. To truly justify your paranoia, rather than do what most people do, which is to refuse them the benefit of the doubt, there has to be cases where the government actually uses private information in a way that completely oversteps their bounds (i.e. not while investigating something you've done illegally).
OK, so the Government got your passkey. You haven't really justified your paranoia until the Government not only uses it, but does something sinister with the information gathered with it.
Outdated business model cramping your style?...make it the law!
I think you'll find that the law came well before the "outdated" business model. It's called copyright law. It's a useful law. Look it up if you get the time. It allows people to profit from creating art, encouraging them to produce it full time if they think they have the talent.
This amendment isn't some extra enforcement agent, giving the **AA extra power to sue little old ladies, this is a bill to encourage education about the law, and the consequences of breaking it. I, for one, have absolutely no problem whatsoever with students in our educational facilities being taught not to break the law. It's an extremely valuable lesson, and could really help curb this undermining of our culture.
... just when they look like they're going to do something not entirely unselfish (like fight piracy), they realise that they can make more money in the short term caving to populist ideology.
doing what someone says without thinking is sheepish.
I can't think of a single person who doesn't think when someone tells them to do something. In fact I can't think of anyone who doesn't think when anything happens. I believe they're referred to as "vegetables" rather than Sheeple.
Seriously though, there are and always will be people telling you what to do. Many of them happen to be trustworthy and sensible. People are asked to do things and to think things all the time. The "sheep" label happens to be a convenient way of saying your trusting the wrong people (i.e. you don't like them).
On that note, I'm calling you a sheep. You obviously have subscribed to the "If you don't agree with me, you haven't thought it through, thus you are a sheep" concept. You obviously haven't fully thought it through, you've just taken for granted that the reasoning that other people with similar opinions (i.e. sheep, the lot of them) was all sound. Thus you are a sheep.
I hate to sound like an apple fanboy (I'm not, trust me - I don't even own an iPod), but I disagree. iPod has an elegance about it. It's like a pod that you can put your music in, and... er... it's "i" is for intelligent, or something. And the name matches the undeniably stylish looks.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, I failed to make the distinction between theft and stealing. I meant the latter, and as it seems, so do many other Slashdotters when they say copyright (or any other IP) infringement is not theft.
Any other ridiculous assertions to make?
Hmm, don't rush out and buy it yet. This processor will only barely scrape the minimum system requirements for Windows 7 lower middle home basic word-processing and emailing edition. I'd wait for a little while longer.
... the body of text having little to do with the subject.
Unless it was the point of your post, and the rest was throwaway pretext for trolling.
Oh well, I found your comment funny, even if the mods didn't.
While I believe the RIAA is doing the right thing defending their IP, I must say I applaud the FSF for helping keep the judicial process fair and even. It's high time for this kind of intervention. I respect that the RIAA can't exactly fight full, drawn out battles against everyone, but this kind of abuse of the court system simply isn't justified. Sorry.
My comment about the moderators-for-hire was about how non-conformist or non-passive ideologies often enough end up with the non-conformists expecting others to conform to their ideology. It's a strong double standard that I pick up on a lot on Slashdot.I accept your apology. Let that be a lesson about guessing your opponent's opinions with little to nothing to go on.Misdirection! There are false dichotomies on all sides. On one hand, you have the terrorists and the government, on the other you have the government and the people. Both of them are false, but I, in all fairness would have to say the former is less false, due to the fact that the latter parties physically overlap, whereas the government has absolutely no terrorists in it. But I get the point, the ideological dichotomy isn't exactly warranted. Still, there are people out there who want to kill me, call them terrorists or not, and I would like my government to do something about it.I hear that one quite a bit, but it fails to take a few things into account:
Firstly, I care about other people. Even if you were to care about the lives of only people you know, that still multiplies the odds significantly.
Secondly, there are inconveniences associated with terrorist strikes. Buildings and possessions get destroyed, and someone has to pay for it. It raises insurance premiums, interest rates, it puts people out of business.
Thirdly, there's nothing to say that terrorist attacks won't increase if they detect weakness. Many of the security measures are designed to allay fears and psychologically discourage terrorists. Who can really say what'll happen if those measures go away?
Fourthly, and finally, despite the low odds of an attack happening, people feel scared by them. There's no sense of control in a terrorist strike for civilians. Only the government is in really any position to help counter them, since they can see and influence the big picture. I personally see nothing wrong, in a democracy, with addressing people's fears, even if they make little tangible benefit.
So there you go, we've broken past our derogatory and inflammatory jibes, and bared our opinions. I hope you found mine as well-reasoned and rational as I did yours.
Just saying...
What's so odd? They've collected your data and now they want to take good care of it.
Oh what, you don't like protection money rackets? If only there were a group of people who could protect you from injustices like that...
Terrorists take your rights and freedom (plus your life if you're unlucky enough). Big Brother takes away your privacy. I know which I'd rather lose.
Absolutely, you're right. It's just that privacy is a kind of paranoia, and it's worthless if, in a purely hypothetical world, no-one was interested in using or remembering your information. But I don't think that the fact that the Government is trying to find out more about you is proof that they're out to get you. I especially don't think that the fact that the government collects certain encryption keys from privacy services is proof either. It's more like an overt act, rather than the crime itself. To truly justify your paranoia, rather than do what most people do, which is to refuse them the benefit of the doubt, there has to be cases where the government actually uses private information in a way that completely oversteps their bounds (i.e. not while investigating something you've done illegally).
This amendment isn't some extra enforcement agent, giving the **AA extra power to sue little old ladies, this is a bill to encourage education about the law, and the consequences of breaking it. I, for one, have absolutely no problem whatsoever with students in our educational facilities being taught not to break the law. It's an extremely valuable lesson, and could really help curb this undermining of our culture.
... just when they look like they're going to do something not entirely unselfish (like fight piracy), they realise that they can make more money in the short term caving to populist ideology.
Seriously though, there are and always will be people telling you what to do. Many of them happen to be trustworthy and sensible. People are asked to do things and to think things all the time. The "sheep" label happens to be a convenient way of saying your trusting the wrong people (i.e. you don't like them).
On that note, I'm calling you a sheep. You obviously have subscribed to the "If you don't agree with me, you haven't thought it through, thus you are a sheep" concept. You obviously haven't fully thought it through, you've just taken for granted that the reasoning that other people with similar opinions (i.e. sheep, the lot of them) was all sound. Thus you are a sheep.
Zune just makes me think of a cat throwing up.