OK, you're not seeing the difference between following a trend and following a trend to hyperbole. Allow me to explain the difference.
Say person A buys several rock albums from person B. Person B could potentially interpret this fact in one of these two ways:
1) Person A is likely to buy at least a few more rock albums 2) Person A has an insatiable hunger for rock, and will continue to buy rock more and more, no matter how much he spends on rock, and no matter how much he listens to rock
Situation 1) is a reasonable extension on a perceived trend. Situation 2) is hyperbole, that observes a trend, and applies it over and over again without taking into account the possibility that by following the trend, the factors that created the trend change.
Besides, most people using the Slippery Slope argument are using a 'worst case' scenario to show what MIGHT happen, not what necessarily WILL happen.
Well, in that case, everything is a slippery slope towards nuclear war, or a meteor wiping all life on earth out. Sure it's a long shot, but it is technically the worst case scenario.
Besides, I disagree with your analysis of the slippery slope's fallaciousness. The problem isn't with transitivity at all, since many of implications don't exist in the first place. The implications put forward are gross oversimplifications of several complex factors, that are often completely incorrect, and reflect more on the person grinding their favourite axe, than it does on the situation they're commenting on.
The real problem with most slippery slope (and frog-boiling) arguments is that they essentially try to pass of hyperbole as a legitimate argument. Think about it: that's really what it is. We take a small piece of erroneous information, ignore several mitigating, equilibrium factors, run with it as far as we'll go, and there you have it: a grotesque hypothetical situation that has only a passing resemblance to reality.
It's true, this hypothetical situation, no matter how absurd, cannot be disproved, and is still technically possible, but that's no reason to give it serious consideration. Just like Intelligent Design can't be disproved, but that doesn't mean we consider it a serious scientific theory (just the opposite, in fact).
Of course! Not owning a firearm is completely indistinct from being a slave! Think of all those poor fools out there living in gun-controlled nations, going about their daily businesses, not realising that they're, quite literally, slaves!
Wow, you, the people who you quoted, and the moderator who modded you up, must all be very smart people! You sure have opened my eyes!
So you're saying we'll get one of two scenarios by 2012:
1) MP3's patents will expire, anyone gets to create devices that play them 2) MP3's patents will expire, anyone gets to create devices that play them, and we get a new patented file format that's backwards compatible with MP3
It costs so much because others advertising works so well. And vice versa. It essentially becomes a self-sustaining increasing spiral.
No-one is holding a gun to business's head, and saying "you must advertise". No-one is holding a gun to consumers and saying "you must buy advertised products". If businesses want to get ahead, they have the option of advertising. It increases their chances that a consumer will look at their product to compare. If you don't want it, or if you can't afford it, you can sell as if advertising doesn't exist, requiring your product to be lucky enough to be bought by someone who likes it. It's not a great business strategy, and it wastes a lot of potential, but you can do it. Expecting everyone else to do it, however, is unfair. If a business's customers reward them with copious amounts of money, why shouldn't they be able to use it to advertise?
Monopolistic competition does not lower prices or create more efficient production; it'll follow lockstep with consumer disposable income.
Correction: it often does not lower prices, or create more efficient production. There are exceptions. For example, how much less do you think we'd be paying if telcos weren't given a monopoly? Every telco would have to invest in its own infrastructure, god forbid they actually work together on a single infrastructure. The first one on the scene would have the infrastructure hastily built, and have the first and only infrastructure actually working, while the others decide to give up and call it a day. It seems that, in fact, the "free" market causes less competition than the "monopoly".
Similarly, copyright is also an exception. We recognise the need for individual works to compete (to keep prices low, and terms reasonable), but we also recognise that we simply don't need competing distribution systems for the same work (for obvious reasons). What you call a monopoly, is simply the bundling of a distribution system with a product. The products are generally trivial enough to survive this bundling, that is, they are non-essential enough for people to boycott the work with the distribution system. They are, after all, entertainment.
Last I checked Coca Cola was trademarked, so you may want to rethink that example. But at least trademarks don't prevent substitutes so they're not exactly that damaging.
Look, you need to be more specific with the words "monopoly". Coca-Cola does not have a monopoly on black, sugary caffeinated drinks, but it does have a "monopoly" (if you must call it that) on the name, and I believe their recipe is also a trade secret. But, as you said, this does not prevent substitutes. Do you really think it's the monopoly on the specific ingredients (down to the letter) and the monopoly on the name that is somehow causing their advertising budget to be in excess of their manufacturing costs?
But then when you analyze the financial flows you realize that as much of what is essentially taxpayers money (by merit of the state legislating and enforcing the incentive system) is spent on marketing as on R&D. These systems have a stated end, and when more money goes elsewhere than towards that end it's not a good thing. In some it's merely sad, but in others like pharmaceuticals, it means our money is spent on irrelevant byproducts (hopefully people aren't getting sick from marketing, so marketing isn't what drives sales there) when the primary end goal is a very important one.
Hold up. Yes the state legislated, but the state does not enforce. Copyright, trademark, and patent infringement are all civil matters. The court costs must be paid by private parties, not the state. The only thing that has a cost is the patent system, in terms of instituting a system that requires regular maintenance, but with a few grand for every patent, I think we can cover costs effectively.
Besides, looking at these money flows are deceptive
I am in the top 5% in my class in ability (grades are another matter, busywork annoys me).
And there's the problem. Ability is nothing without putting the work behind it. Sure, you taught yourself this and that, and sure, you do some nice little projects on the side, but without a tolerance for mundane, sometimes seemingly pointless (sometimes truly pointless) work, you'll just be another narcissistic college graduate.
On a tangential note, I'm seeing a lot of ego here. Lot's of people saying they're skilled, or experienced, or (most likely) both. Anyone here feel that they're only average at what they do? Don't look at me, though. I am an exceptional bachelor of maths student, and I just know it.;)
They had some solid ideas on patent reform. Shifting the burden of proof to the soon-to-be patent holder seems like a sensible suggestion. However, their evidence, and their conclusions, are just rubbish.
Evidence shows very strongly there are lots of ways to make money without patents and copyright."
Yeah, but none of the evidence shows that any of it is very good. Copyright, to this day, is still, by far and away the most popular business model, and despite the growing discontent with copyright amongst the ignorant and/or greedy, not one of them has managed to overtake the copyright business model.
Perhaps it's because people are having their cake and eating too. They have the protection of copyright, but they also have the option to subvert it at any time they feel like, at the expense of those who do pay for their entertainment. But, we'll never know, unless people stop pirating, and actually throw their support completely behind a competing business model. I suspect, if that happens, those business models won't be so popular over the next 5 years, but that's just my speculation.
Levine and Boldrin point to students being sued for 'pirating' music on the internet and AIDS patients in Africa dying because they cannot afford expensive drugs produced by patent holders as examples of the failure of the current system.
Failures? Without copyright, would the students even have the choice whether or not to pirate that music (assuming the lawsuits are justified)? Without patents, would there even be a drug that African AIDS patients couldn't afford?
The article is rubbish. It completely glosses over the real issues with copyright/patent reform, and favours instead shouting PROPAGANDA in a crowded internet forum.
Not to arrogant, self-justifying pirates. To them, paying cost price is extremely simple. Just ignore costs of actually creating the original work, ignore any "profit costs", and there you have it! Free is a perfectly fair price for any digital work!
I just wanted to make the point that there's a difference between mass-piracy (which may well be because your original product is too expensive)
Yah, because !free = too expensive.
There's always going to be people who can't afford something. In the past, sellers, as part of the free market, have had the freedom to set their own price to maximise profits and the commercial viability of their product. Not any more, thanks to piracy!
Now, consumers can decide what they think is fair for the seller to have, regardless of the seller's wishes, needs, or financial health. While we're at it, we might as well make it legal (or at least morally A-OK) to run out of a retail joint with a physical object, leaving only the manufacturing costs behind.
Oh absolutely. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was saying that without copyright, it wouldn't be possible. What you propose, as you said, is a form of copyright, just with mandatory licensing.
Interesting idea too, even if it isn't really in line with the free market. The free market is supposed to guarantee sellers some rights as well, like the right not to sell if they don't want to, to avoid drawing them into an inefficient, unprofitable markets at their expense. Still, tune it up a little, add a few details, and I think you have a reasonable idea there.
You mistake cause and effect. Marketing costs a lot of money because the large entities (try to) make it necessary.
It's actually in every big media's interest to make marketing as affordable as possible, since they pour multiple billions into marketing each year. Your saying that the interests of Big Advertising can somehow outweigh the interests of Big Movie, Big Music, Big Game, Big just about anything else? Perhaps marketing costs so much because it works so well.
drown in the flood of games that are released.
Drown in the flood of marketing by the large entities, you mean.
Small games can easily slip under the marketing flood. The real problem is that under the marketing flood, there's a flood of flash games, indie games, open source project games, etc, all equally vying for your attention, with no effective method of marketing or spreading via word of mouth. I think the OP meant what he said.
A bad game with marketing will almost always outsell a good one with no marketing.
I'm sure you're right, and that's one of the more severely damaging aspects of copyright. In a free market system with interchangeable goods there's a limit to the value of marketing; make too much and your product becomes too expensive and people buy the competition. In a monopoly system with low product fungibility the limit is simply where lost sales are not lost to competition but to unaffordability, that limit is much higher.
There are two things wrong with that argument. Firstly, there is competition in copyright systems. You can buy (or, in some cases, get legitimately for free) other products from the competitors, but you just can't get an identical product. It just means that if you want that exact work, you have to take the distribution method with it. That's all.
Secondly, see my sig. If you want competition of distribution models over the same artwork, then the creator is not going to get any money, assuming the free market works (which it does in most cases). Consumers will typically go for the cheapest distribution. The artist not making any money, will typically result in him finding something else to spend his time on, something that puts food on his table. He simply can't compete with file-sharers.
You think that lack of competition is bad with copyright, you should see it without copyright.
It's an effect that's noticable in every monopoly protected sector, from pharmaceuticals to music; more money gets spent on marketing than on the actual product.
And what about non-monopoly protected sectors? I'm pretty sure that Coca-Cola spends considerably more on advertising than it does in production, or research into new formulas, etc. It's not a monopoly, yet it still "suffers" from the same problem. It happens with most large businesses, monopoly or not.
Which is rather tragic, as it means we're getting less of what we, as a society, actually want, in exchange for more of what we don't want.
Look, nothing is stopping you from searching from behind the advertising. Advertising doesn't actually make other goods harder to get, it just promotes them into the forefront of what most people will compare when they decide to make a purchase.
I think you're blowing this all way out of proportion. There aren't mind-controlling waves emanating from advertising. If you don't look beyond advertising, it means either you're lazy, you're stupid, or you're happy enough as it is buying from whatever advertisers serve to you. If the first applies to you, it's your own damn fault. If the second applies to you, then getting rid of advertising won't help you. If the third applies to you, then you're not complaining. What's your problem?
Or maybe it's a simple issue with DRM. Oh well, the games are (mostly) cheap, and they can be installed on multiple computers. It's good enough for me.
The fact that people learn a lot from there, and that's what it was built for. Prisons were built to keep criminals from the streets, schools were built for giving kids educations (and keeping people off the streets).
I see a lot of people come out of the schooling system saying they didn't learn anything, but in truth, they've picked up and cemented in some vital knowledge for every day life. That's not to say you can't get it elsewhere, but school serves its purpose to a certain degree.
Craigslist is making money from prostitution, the Streets Department isn't. If he's going to sue one or the other, he might as well go after the profiteers first.
It especially doesn't work so well when authorities don't tend to stay authorities for very long. Term limits inhibit the amount "boiling" one person can do, and it only takes his successor to undo all his changes. In fact, in order to "boil the frog" slowly enough, a politician would probably need more than one lifetime (let alone term length). What you'd need is a fairly large conspiracy, spanning one or more major political party. The whole thing doesn't even approach feasible.
Besides, frog-boiling is supposed to imperceptible. If you can tell it's happening, then it's not happening.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, you're not seeing the difference between following a trend and following a trend to hyperbole. Allow me to explain the difference.
Say person A buys several rock albums from person B. Person B could potentially interpret this fact in one of these two ways:
1) Person A is likely to buy at least a few more rock albums
2) Person A has an insatiable hunger for rock, and will continue to buy rock more and more, no matter how much he spends on rock, and no matter how much he listens to rock
Situation 1) is a reasonable extension on a perceived trend. Situation 2) is hyperbole, that observes a trend, and applies it over and over again without taking into account the possibility that by following the trend, the factors that created the trend change.
Think about it.
Well, in that case, everything is a slippery slope towards nuclear war, or a meteor wiping all life on earth out. Sure it's a long shot, but it is technically the worst case scenario.
Besides, I disagree with your analysis of the slippery slope's fallaciousness. The problem isn't with transitivity at all, since many of implications don't exist in the first place. The implications put forward are gross oversimplifications of several complex factors, that are often completely incorrect, and reflect more on the person grinding their favourite axe, than it does on the situation they're commenting on.
The real problem with most slippery slope (and frog-boiling) arguments is that they essentially try to pass of hyperbole as a legitimate argument. Think about it: that's really what it is. We take a small piece of erroneous information, ignore several mitigating, equilibrium factors, run with it as far as we'll go, and there you have it: a grotesque hypothetical situation that has only a passing resemblance to reality.
It's true, this hypothetical situation, no matter how absurd, cannot be disproved, and is still technically possible, but that's no reason to give it serious consideration. Just like Intelligent Design can't be disproved, but that doesn't mean we consider it a serious scientific theory (just the opposite, in fact).
Oh, won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!
Of course! Not owning a firearm is completely indistinct from being a slave! Think of all those poor fools out there living in gun-controlled nations, going about their daily businesses, not realising that they're, quite literally, slaves!
Wow, you, the people who you quoted, and the moderator who modded you up, must all be very smart people! You sure have opened my eyes!
So you're saying we'll get one of two scenarios by 2012:
1) MP3's patents will expire, anyone gets to create devices that play them
2) MP3's patents will expire, anyone gets to create devices that play them, and we get a new patented file format that's backwards compatible with MP3
So, why do we care what they do?
Can anyone tell me WTF is wrong with this page?
WARNING: I haven't checked personally, since I live in Australia, so it may not be work-friendly.
It costs so much because others advertising works so well. And vice versa. It essentially becomes a self-sustaining increasing spiral.
No-one is holding a gun to business's head, and saying "you must advertise". No-one is holding a gun to consumers and saying "you must buy advertised products". If businesses want to get ahead, they have the option of advertising. It increases their chances that a consumer will look at their product to compare. If you don't want it, or if you can't afford it, you can sell as if advertising doesn't exist, requiring your product to be lucky enough to be bought by someone who likes it. It's not a great business strategy, and it wastes a lot of potential, but you can do it. Expecting everyone else to do it, however, is unfair. If a business's customers reward them with copious amounts of money, why shouldn't they be able to use it to advertise?
Correction: it often does not lower prices, or create more efficient production. There are exceptions. For example, how much less do you think we'd be paying if telcos weren't given a monopoly? Every telco would have to invest in its own infrastructure, god forbid they actually work together on a single infrastructure. The first one on the scene would have the infrastructure hastily built, and have the first and only infrastructure actually working, while the others decide to give up and call it a day. It seems that, in fact, the "free" market causes less competition than the "monopoly".
Similarly, copyright is also an exception. We recognise the need for individual works to compete (to keep prices low, and terms reasonable), but we also recognise that we simply don't need competing distribution systems for the same work (for obvious reasons). What you call a monopoly, is simply the bundling of a distribution system with a product. The products are generally trivial enough to survive this bundling, that is, they are non-essential enough for people to boycott the work with the distribution system. They are, after all, entertainment.
Look, you need to be more specific with the words "monopoly". Coca-Cola does not have a monopoly on black, sugary caffeinated drinks, but it does have a "monopoly" (if you must call it that) on the name, and I believe their recipe is also a trade secret. But, as you said, this does not prevent substitutes. Do you really think it's the monopoly on the specific ingredients (down to the letter) and the monopoly on the name that is somehow causing their advertising budget to be in excess of their manufacturing costs?
Hold up. Yes the state legislated, but the state does not enforce. Copyright, trademark, and patent infringement are all civil matters. The court costs must be paid by private parties, not the state. The only thing that has a cost is the patent system, in terms of instituting a system that requires regular maintenance, but with a few grand for every patent, I think we can cover costs effectively.
Besides, looking at these money flows are deceptive
And there's the problem. Ability is nothing without putting the work behind it. Sure, you taught yourself this and that, and sure, you do some nice little projects on the side, but without a tolerance for mundane, sometimes seemingly pointless (sometimes truly pointless) work, you'll just be another narcissistic college graduate.
On a tangential note, I'm seeing a lot of ego here. Lot's of people saying they're skilled, or experienced, or (most likely) both. Anyone here feel that they're only average at what they do? Don't look at me, though. I am an exceptional bachelor of maths student, and I just know it. ;)
So if, by using itunes, you're bankrolling code thieves, wouldn't that mean that by not using itunes, you're becoming a music thief?
What? He can't have it both ways! If it's not stealing, then neither is GPL violations!
They had some solid ideas on patent reform. Shifting the burden of proof to the soon-to-be patent holder seems like a sensible suggestion. However, their evidence, and their conclusions, are just rubbish.
Yeah, but none of the evidence shows that any of it is very good. Copyright, to this day, is still, by far and away the most popular business model, and despite the growing discontent with copyright amongst the ignorant and/or greedy, not one of them has managed to overtake the copyright business model.
Perhaps it's because people are having their cake and eating too. They have the protection of copyright, but they also have the option to subvert it at any time they feel like, at the expense of those who do pay for their entertainment. But, we'll never know, unless people stop pirating, and actually throw their support completely behind a competing business model. I suspect, if that happens, those business models won't be so popular over the next 5 years, but that's just my speculation.
Failures? Without copyright, would the students even have the choice whether or not to pirate that music (assuming the lawsuits are justified)? Without patents, would there even be a drug that African AIDS patients couldn't afford?
The article is rubbish. It completely glosses over the real issues with copyright/patent reform, and favours instead shouting PROPAGANDA in a crowded internet forum.
Not to arrogant, self-justifying pirates. To them, paying cost price is extremely simple. Just ignore costs of actually creating the original work, ignore any "profit costs", and there you have it! Free is a perfectly fair price for any digital work!
Yah, because !free = too expensive.
There's always going to be people who can't afford something. In the past, sellers, as part of the free market, have had the freedom to set their own price to maximise profits and the commercial viability of their product. Not any more, thanks to piracy!
Now, consumers can decide what they think is fair for the seller to have, regardless of the seller's wishes, needs, or financial health. While we're at it, we might as well make it legal (or at least morally A-OK) to run out of a retail joint with a physical object, leaving only the manufacturing costs behind.
Or not, whatever you think is fair.
Oh absolutely. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was saying that without copyright, it wouldn't be possible. What you propose, as you said, is a form of copyright, just with mandatory licensing.
Interesting idea too, even if it isn't really in line with the free market. The free market is supposed to guarantee sellers some rights as well, like the right not to sell if they don't want to, to avoid drawing them into an inefficient, unprofitable markets at their expense. Still, tune it up a little, add a few details, and I think you have a reasonable idea there.
Brad Pitt!
This is fun! OK, now I'll name one, and you match it with another big name in the Games Industry.
Angelina Jolie! ...
*crickets*
It's actually in every big media's interest to make marketing as affordable as possible, since they pour multiple billions into marketing each year. Your saying that the interests of Big Advertising can somehow outweigh the interests of Big Movie, Big Music, Big Game, Big just about anything else? Perhaps marketing costs so much because it works so well.
Small games can easily slip under the marketing flood. The real problem is that under the marketing flood, there's a flood of flash games, indie games, open source project games, etc, all equally vying for your attention, with no effective method of marketing or spreading via word of mouth. I think the OP meant what he said.
There are two things wrong with that argument. Firstly, there is competition in copyright systems. You can buy (or, in some cases, get legitimately for free) other products from the competitors, but you just can't get an identical product. It just means that if you want that exact work, you have to take the distribution method with it. That's all.
Secondly, see my sig. If you want competition of distribution models over the same artwork, then the creator is not going to get any money, assuming the free market works (which it does in most cases). Consumers will typically go for the cheapest distribution. The artist not making any money, will typically result in him finding something else to spend his time on, something that puts food on his table. He simply can't compete with file-sharers.
You think that lack of competition is bad with copyright, you should see it without copyright.
And what about non-monopoly protected sectors? I'm pretty sure that Coca-Cola spends considerably more on advertising than it does in production, or research into new formulas, etc. It's not a monopoly, yet it still "suffers" from the same problem. It happens with most large businesses, monopoly or not.
Look, nothing is stopping you from searching from behind the advertising. Advertising doesn't actually make other goods harder to get, it just promotes them into the forefront of what most people will compare when they decide to make a purchase.
I think you're blowing this all way out of proportion. There aren't mind-controlling waves emanating from advertising. If you don't look beyond advertising, it means either you're lazy, you're stupid, or you're happy enough as it is buying from whatever advertisers serve to you. If the first applies to you, it's your own damn fault. If the second applies to you, then getting rid of advertising won't help you. If the third applies to you, then you're not complaining. What's your problem?
Because they consolidate the industry? You know, steam has been very friendly to indie developers.
Or maybe it's a simple issue with DRM. Oh well, the games are (mostly) cheap, and they can be installed on multiple computers. It's good enough for me.
But, GP=troll
"Now, get back to work so you can pay your entire wage in taxes, komrade."
Classic troll fare.
Actually, that's over 7000, last time I checked.
Not only do you have to fill it, you have to fill it faster than they can add to it.
The fact that people learn a lot from there, and that's what it was built for. Prisons were built to keep criminals from the streets, schools were built for giving kids educations (and keeping people off the streets).
I see a lot of people come out of the schooling system saying they didn't learn anything, but in truth, they've picked up and cemented in some vital knowledge for every day life. That's not to say you can't get it elsewhere, but school serves its purpose to a certain degree.
Craigslist is making money from prostitution, the Streets Department isn't. If he's going to sue one or the other, he might as well go after the profiteers first.
How about:
D. Ulrich owns his own copyright, piracy is theft, pirating is theft from himself, stealing a CD is theft from himself and a store.
Why don't intelligent libertarians get modded up these days?
Yeah, go ahead mods. Gimme all you got.
Hell, that's what they demanded.
I mean the ending to your plan. It's to end at zero, and hope we end up somewhere greater than we are now, which is no mean feat.
Ah, Frog-boiling! Another fallacy!
It especially doesn't work so well when authorities don't tend to stay authorities for very long. Term limits inhibit the amount "boiling" one person can do, and it only takes his successor to undo all his changes. In fact, in order to "boil the frog" slowly enough, a politician would probably need more than one lifetime (let alone term length). What you'd need is a fairly large conspiracy, spanning one or more major political party. The whole thing doesn't even approach feasible.
Besides, frog-boiling is supposed to imperceptible. If you can tell it's happening, then it's not happening.