I know Amazon has unbox, which I tried a couple of times, but I don't know if you can burn. Quim certainly has a wish I've shared-- I especially want to legally buy music videos and burn them to DVD for my wife. No luck with a source so far (iTunes, while allowing burning of songs to CD, ironically forbids burning of videos to DVD). Opportunity for a Nokia service???
I was under the assumption that the DMCA/Millenium Act or whatever expressly allowed you to keep a 'backup' copy of any digital content, in which case, why couldn't you buy the disc and then rip it, provided you don't put it on any filesharing networks?
@hypocrisy - that's what I'd thought. I realize that ripping Netflix movies is a bit of a grey area, but that's neither here nor there.
I do believe, though, that part of the law also says that in making said legit backup, you can't purposefully circumvent any DRM, isn't that correct? So basically, the labels/XXIA can circumvent your right to fair use by slapping some DRM on there, right?
This is why I pirate stuff. It's far easier to pirate than try to navigate the 'correct' way to do things. Imagine if downloading and enjoying digital music was as simple as using Hulu is? I love Hulu, and it's a situation where everyone wins.
Well there's Amazon MP3, Amie StreetGrooveshark and a ton more. One thing that needs to change however, are the unskippable anti-piracy warnings shown on DVDs. It just annoys the heck out of you when you actually buy the damn thing.
@rcadden There has been threats from certain lawyers that personal backups is illegal, but that is FUD and such personal backups are legal - even for you guys living in the USA.
Regarding circumventing the DRM, I don't think that is legal over there - but I am not 100% sure. Though, it would be retarded (truly) if anyone would get busted over making a copy of their own purchased film (for example) for their own use.
@atmasphere - If I deleted them when I canceled my subscription, would that make it legal? (Not that I'm overly concerned, just posing the question as a topic of discussion)
If not, how's that different from a Rhapsody subscription or other subscription service?
@rcadden as you didn't purchase a copy of the movies you get via netflix, burning and keeping a copy after returning the movie is definitely not legal.
IANAL, the boundary between "fair use" and "copy protection circumvention" appears to be a gray area in the US. I do seem to remember making backups of DVDs being ruled legal by courts as an example of fair use, but "fair use" seems to be a somewhat vague legal notion most consumers and some courts recognize and Big Content (RIAA, MPAA, now even book publishers) wants to eradicate completely.
@yoggel This used to be the way over here in Sweden too, though now it is criminalized to both download and upload copyrighted material you don't have the license to re-distribute.
However, it is still legal to make a copy for "a close friend" - which is quite interesting, but that is also why there is an extra fee on every DVDr/CDr/cassette sold.
@traecer What you describe is part of the "immaterial media industry's" credibility problem. Why would people feel more inclined to purchase more movies, music (sic) if the companies that they are buying mentioned goods from are treating their (potential) customers like criminals? It doesn't really work...
@atmasphere The digital download of the DVDs is not the same as subscription based material.
And can you rephrase the question? Or, do you mean that it was legal to download material in Sweden? Well, it used to be so that only uploading copyrighted material was illegal, but then both up/download was criminalized.
@rcadden: I don't think "fair use" is actually enshrined in a actual law passed by Congress and signed by the President. It appears to be a doctrine the courts have evolved, which would be why Big Content believes they can snuff it out (someone please correct me if I'm wrong).
And the whole mess is why I've pretty much given up on the whole thing too. I do buy music from Amazon MP3 because they provide me a way to legally buy music in the way I want (high-quality MP3s w/o copy protection). But for video, I've decided to sod it all and do whatever gets me videos I want where I want them. When someone decides to attempt to address that market, I'll be there to patronize them.
@atmasphere There is no expiration on the digital download? That is what I mean... As per end user terms, it might be the same - so you're probably right there. (Pardon for not understanding what you meant at the beginning.)
And yes, it was really legal to download stuff from the net before the downstream was made a criminal offence.
@yoggel What you point out is how all these pirate card vendors (satellite) were hindered in their tracks; They circumvented the copy protection of the channels, thus such activity was deemed not legal.
@edythemighty: I am corrected! Still, the RIAA and MPAA seem determined to use the courts and lobby Congress to limit fair use rights as much as possible.
Technically iTunes allows you to burn videos to a Data DVD, which cannot be played on anything but a computer. That wouldn't be a total jerkaround, except that after I've burned the videos they can't be played. The DVD iTunes makes isn't even recognized by my PC afterward. I can see the "burned" region-- but the PC that made it can't. Unreal.
There's a program called tunebite that supposedly can redirect video streams to new unprotected files, but I got very poor results from numerous attempts.
Bottom line, this situation is idiotic IMO. I paid for use of the media (as a content creator myself I realize I don't own what I "bought"), and by all rights I should be able to put it into whatever viewable format I desire... as well as able to create a usable backup. I continue to believe we mostly have all of the "I want ALL of my content free" pirates for the current situation. Protection schemes are a defense mechanism.
@texrat Indeed it is idiotic, as even if the company selling you the product can claim that you "only pay for using the product in one format" (DVD or whatever) you should still be able to use the same product on whatever format you want. If the media company/ies want to make the material format exclusive they better lower their prices per unit/format.
@yoggel The (local) distribution deals is something that is keeping the media companies from saving themselves. If they don't start to re-negotiate the distribution agreements they (sic) all have worldwide, it will continue to go downhill and the consumers will find better venues to get their films, music etc - and those venues are places like The Pirate Bay and the like.
It's amazing that a simple post like Quim's can evoke this old controversy. ;)
Since we've already gone down that road I'll take the opportunity to clarify some things:
-Unless you have bought an ORIGINAL work, and thus the rights that came with it, you don't own it or any derivitives. Sorry, but technically you have only paid for the privilege (not right) of enjoying a copy. Here's an appropriate analogy: if I buy an original painting, I own it (and typically all derivitive rights unless it's gone into the public domain). If i buy a print of that original, then I've simply purchased the privilege of displaying that copy. I certainly don't own the original!
-Where people tend to err is not understanding that the example above applies to recorded media as well. The law is very clear on this.
-Many Americans seem to have a HUGE misunderstanding of what rights they really hold. There is no right of the rank-and-file to own or copy created media. There IS however a very specifically enumerated right for original media creators to enjoy protection of their work, and that includes just compensation for derivitive works. Let's leave the evil middlemen out of that. :D
-The "right" of personal use and backup has been codified by legislation and Supreme Court rulings, which is close enough to true constitutionality.
All that said, I disagree with the application of the law in many cases. But I'm a content creator and no hypocrite, so I grit my teeth and abide by some really stupid laws-- however, I will continue to harrass those responsible for stupid laws and stupid protection schemes. I just wish someone (Nokia?) would make a serious stab at bettering iTunes. It's possible, and desired.
And kudos to Quim for defying the norm and trying to keep it legal.
@Texrat - I'm not arguing with you at all. I don't mind paying for the content, I just want to be able to then enjoy it wherever and however I want, be it on my laptop, netbook, tablet, or phone.
While I agree my usage of Netflix is...er.....illegitimate, it makes me feel better (and should make others feel better) knowing that I'm at least paying for access to the content once, as opposed to simply pirating it from the get-go.
I don't mind paying for content, it just has to be easier for me to legally acquire AND ENJOY said content than to otherwise access it. I'm a paying Last.FM user, use Hulu, and a Netflix subscriber, but none of those make it dead-simple for ME to choose how/where I enjoy the content.
It occurred to me that items 3 and 4 appear to contradict, but that's only because I omitted details. Sorry. Item 3 refers to copy for other than personal use.
@Texrat "Fair use" should still apply, and if a consumer wants to make a backup of their DVD movie or whatever, they should be explicitly allowed to do so. Not sure what you're trying to say with your earlier post, but the fact of media/distribution companies treating their customers as (near) criminals is just not "fair commerce" <- woops ;)
I'm being objective here and looking for the overall fairness to all involved. Unfortunately, this issue has evolved into a polemic that has 2 extremes (distributers vs consumers) deeply entrenched in untenable positions. And of course through it all the creators get the ultimate shaft. Their share of the pie is steadily dwindling as two uncaring sides do battle... and the direct-to-market distribution models have yet to develop viability years after the promise.
No prob @yoggel. I don't think content distributers really care about international fairness. That's why we have nonsense like DVD regionalization. There are international copyright "laws", with virtually no teeth. Maybe when One World Government comes, though [evil grin]...
Which brings up another thing: in the US this whole debacle arose years ago with VCRs. After a big battle a beautiful solution came about: simply tax the media and the proceeds go into a pool that is then distributed via agencies like BMI, SAG, ASCAP et al to content creators, participants, etc. So why don't we do likewise with CDs, DVDs and even players? I hate that common sense isn't so common...
The whole thing is a game here in the US, and one where the rules change depending on the situation and players involved. I can buy music legally from itunes, but only can play it where and when they say so.. Hence my computers running Ubuntu are blocked. I can buy a cd and make a backup legally, can give it to a friend legally (by some interpretations of fair use anyway), but if I EMAIL it to a friend, it isn't necessarily the same as giving them a copy. I can buy a dvd, and while I can legally make a copy of it in theory, the tools to do so circumvent DRM and are illegal currently (bit like saying you are allowed to drive with your stereo on but not allowed to have speakers in your car).
The fact of the matter is that anything you pay money for has so many restrictions on it that it amounts to renting, not buying. By definition, property ownership has to be something that you have full rights to.. You've never actually owned a DVD, song, CD, or anything else in your life, period. You've simply been renting it, and owning the media that it is on.
this isn't new. The same arguments that almost tanked the VCR business... That killed off sampling in music (listen to Paul's Boutique by the Beauties Boys.. That album would be illegal as hell by today's standards).. it all boils down to the fact that intellectual property is bunk, self-serving, and in the end has very little to do with protecting content, and everything to do with protecting revenue.
Piracy will always be a problem.. But IP laws have very little to do with piracy in the end. In the same way that gun laws do very little to keep guns out of the hands of criminals (what criminal buys a gun legally anyway?), IP laws harm consumers not pirates.. In fact they create the very ecosystems that allow piracy to thrive in the first place.
@ollymc, you're putting the cart before the horse. Don't blame the reaction for the action-- that violates cause-and-effect. ; )
IP laws in and of themselves harm no one (except pirates). At least, not those with a constitutional basis. The Digital Millennium nonsense is a different story, and should not be lumped in with original copyright law as it muddies the intellectual waters.
Also, interpretations are cheap. There is no legal basis for content sharing, sorry... not in the US anyway.
Oh, and IP isn't bunk by any means, @ollymc. You're taking a cynical view I doubt you'd take if your livlihood completely depended on content creation.
Don't punish content creators for the evils of the middlemen. That's disingenuous.
@texrat.. My point is this: in the same way that we have laws to combat crime, laws can also CREATE crime. The DMCA does just that.. Create criminals where their weren't there prior.
As for lumping the DMCA with existing IP law.. Fair point, it does have different characteristics then other IP laws.. But I maintain that intellectual property as a whole is bunk, and that the root of the problem here is the concept that such a thing as 'intellectual property' could even exist.
Though I recognise that's a whole 'nother argument ;)
Intellectual Property tries to give legal credence to the idea that the way words, brush strokes, or notes are arranged some how 'creates' property. My view is that this should plain and simple be a market issue, not a legal one. As a content creator, you can try to lock down your content to your hearts content.. And as a consumer I can try to circumvent that.. But neither side ought to have any business bringing the law into play. How someone thinks they can 'own' anything as ethereal as what amounts to an idea is ridiculous to me.
If it weren't for the laws behind what you decry, odds are the systems you're using to make these arguments might have never been created. Very ironic, don't you think? I wonder if people really think these anti-IP arguments through. Remember, that includes not just copyright but patent and trademark as well-- all based on the same principles. And this belief that music and brush strokes dont really create a protectable product is absurd. My work as a writer, artist or musician is just as valid as anyone else's as that of a cell phone inventor, for example. There is a market for those works, and I expect to be paid for the fruits of my labor by people who are willing.
Basically the anti-IP argument can be summed into this illogical statement: "SOME IP implementation and protection is improper ergo ALL IP laws are invalid." Sorry, that position is rather naive.
Oh, and laws do NOT ipso facto create crime. That is just another logical fallacy. NO ONE is forced to violate the law. That is always a choice.
I forgot this, @ollymc: IP does NOT protect ideas. At all. I think maybe you have a severe misunderstanding of the true issue here, and that is leading your reasoning astray. I suggest you get more familiar with the issue before arguing about it on public fora. ; )
@texrat I didn't and wouldn't say that ALL laws ipso facto create crime.. rather that some laws ex post facto turn some folks into criminals for rather trivial reasons.
As for the idea that there is a market for your work, and you expect to get paid, I have no arguments with that. However, that doesn't imply that you are entitled to legal protection to gain that payment. As I said, if you, as a content creator, can come up with ways to make it easier for people to buy your works rather then obtain them in some other way, then more power to you.. But wanting legal protection for that is a different story. There is clearly a difference between physical property and 'intellectual property' (one is physically tangible, one is not).
What is called 'Intellectual Property' also has another main difference from actual physical property.. One can be replicated, the other cannot (legally). If I see my neighbor has built a bbq in his back yard, I can build an exact copy of it in my own backyard.. Is this theft? Of course not. But if you write something, I cannot copy it (legally) because this is considered theft. Do you see the disconnect here? intellectual property somehow becomes a legal special case.. You are inventing new definitions of property to create legal protections, not creating legal protections to defend actual property.
You dismiss any argument against intellectual property because you simply accept ideas as property.. but just because YOU accept intellectual property as actual property doesn't dis,issue the very real logical problems of making a special class of property, quite literally out of thin air.
IP doesn't protect ideas? So I can copy your words, call them my own, and have no legal ramifications? If IP isn't protecting ideas, what is it protecting? Oh right, revenue, as I already mentioned. IP certainly doesn't protect physical media, that's actual property laws. So what exactly are you arguing it protects?
@hypocrisy.. Of course I can't copy texrats blog and call them my own, he'd sue me in a heartbeat. So IP is protecting ideas for the purposes of revenue, which was my point.
@ollymc That depends on how much you copy. It is highly doubtful that what texrat would write here on Jaiku would be unique enough to get copyrighted, for example. (And it also depends on the Jaiku ToS)
No offense, but you should really read up on the subject. Both locally (where you are located) but also perhaps in some other countries (aka markets). Then you'll have a deeper and better understanding of the topic.
@hypocrisy.. My point is that ANY protection for ideas is creating a very specialized view of what property is solely for the protection of profits, and that this definition of property is not even logically valid.
@ollymc what do you suggest then? What will pay for development of products, medicine etc? What will pay for movies being made?
I think that we all here agree that things has to be made better in terms of how (for example) copyright claims are handled (look above in this thread), but you are not being realistic.
@hypocrisy.. Long before there were IP laws, there were medicines. Long before there were trademarks, there were companies.
If there is a market for something, if there is money to be made, people will step in to make that money. As for artistic endeavours, people will make them for the same reason people always have.. Because they enjoy it. Products that lack protections based on IP have to be developed FASTER because as soon as you release an idea, if everyone starts copying it, you have incentive to stay ahead of the curve. Drug patents, for example, keep generics off the shelf, which keeps prices artificially high due to lack of competition. Without competition, drug company development cycles are longer, since its easier to rest on your laurels when your product is legally protected. Songs that are protected by IP laws keep other artists from improving on them, altering them, without prohibitive royalties.
IP, patent law, trademarks.. All are anti-competitive to the extreme.
I'm not looking to get into another one of these never ending arguments, but take today's "hit" band Coldplay. They've done a large amount of samplings over their career, and have gotten more popular than the artists they sampled. Basically, Coldplay is a parasite that lives off of decent, hardworking artists. Without some measure of protection from IP laws, parasites like Coldplay can just take their oodles of cash provided by big labels that sign bands like them on, and rip off the works of lesser known artists (lesser known in some circles, perhaps). Yes, there's things wrong with some of these laws, and in many cases their application, but they are not without their merits. And that's about all I'm adding, toodles. By the way, @hypocrisy went to sleep so you'll probably have to wait around 8 hours for his reply ;)
LMAO @sleeping hypocrisy (thats a band name in and of itself!)..
Coldplay selling better while sampling original material is based on the fact that a.) most people have not taste, and b.) record labels are masters at marketing shit and at the same time fooling people into thinking it smells like roses.
However, you will NEVER get me to think that supression of works (i.e. Coldplay) is a valid reason to protect ideas (i.e. the original artists). For every example you can bring up where sampling caused a band that sucks (believe me, I agree that Coldplay sucks) to make money where the original didnt, there is an equal example of where an original work sucked, and someone more talented took it and made it into something better.
However, you are right, this is definitely an argument that could go on for hours, and my daughter is tugging at my sleeve for her Elmo DVD, so I'm gonna turn off my phiolosophy portion of my brain myself :).
By the way, copyright arguments aside, I happen to like your blogs @texrat, so keep up the good work!
@ollymc said: "IP, patent law, trademarks.. All are anti-competitive to the extreme"
Anticompetitive??? Extreme???
IP protection actually encourages a level competitive playing field! I think you've been drinking too much of Lawrence Lessig's polluted Koolaid.
Your argument that ALL creators should work simply out of altruistic obligation is one of the oldest examples of flawed reasoning employed in this debate. You don't speak for all of us (thank God) so while you're entitled to hold dear to absurd ideals we can rest assured your version of reality will probably never come to pass.
By the way, drug patents don't "keep" generics off the shelf-- they simply forestall their deployment. I won't support everything done in that realm (I think the failed efforts by Big Pharma to patent herbs in India was another example of idiocy) but I can sure see validity in protecting an investment.
Bottom line, the only thing extreme in this thread, @ollymc, are your hyperbolic responses to some very reasonable posts. You continue to misunderstand the subject (ie, your misguided response to the accurate "IP does not protect ideas") and I strongly suggest you get educated on this subject, as I did many years ago.
@ollymc, I'll try to explain: IP dosn't protect ideas. I realize it's presented that way, even in some legitimate venues, but that's wrong.
IP protects the _rendition_ of an idea.
Still doubt? Think that's just semantics? Want to test it?
Try patenting an idea, and see how far you get. Seriously. See how long it takes for your patent to be rejected.
Copyrights and Trademarks don't really protect ideas, either. Every work covered by those precepts is a rendition.
You want to make the claim that artworks are nebulous, but this is false. Every painting my wife renders is comprised of a tangible media on a solid substrate. Every piece of music I create involves a pen, some paper, a guitar and ultimately a computer. It also takes a physical device to reproduce the work. It is anything but immaterial. I can't just think these things into existence.
The fruits of my creative labor, and that of my wife, are not ideas. They are the ultimate product of ideas. I can no more sell an idea than I can a wish-- but my creations FROM those ideas are certainly tangible and certainly, thanks to very old and much-tested law in our sacred US constitution, protected from unscrupulous use. I am guaranteed protection from the moment I complete a work (it does not even have to be registered). That is my right.
If you don't agree with those laws, that's fine-- you have every right (not a privilege this time!) to appeal to your representatives to amend the constitution of your country. If you have a valid case, and get enough backing, maybe your opinion will become the law of the land. But for now, if you don't abide by the law, you are a criminal or civil troublemaker. Sorry. Disagreement with the law changes nothing. Ask the judge who found me guilty of speeding even after I protested the lunacy of the speed limit on a country road. ; )
Sometimes IP laws apply to physical items, as well. If @ollymc makes an exact copy of his neighbor's BBQ, and that BBQ is still under patent, he has infringed the patent holder's rights.
The disconnect seems to be that @ollymc is arguing for his desired scenario as if there were no current laws opposing it. But there are. There is a difference between the status quo and his desired state. Disagreement with the status quo is great-- I do it all the time in other areas! But it helps the dialog to at least recognize and acknolwedge current state, and then frame arguments accordingly.
At least Patent law is grounded in a reasonable 20yr term for the claims covered by the patent. Copyright law has gone over the deep end with its term of life +70yrs. Perhaps it leveled the playing field at one time, but not it has been far too abused by the corporate media companies to benefit anyone.
Take the Coldplay example from above (note, I do not know anything about what they have or have not sampled, but for purposes of this, let us say they did sample heavily and got away with it). Now that their label owns the copyright of their material, you had better believe that anyone making a record sampling even a little Coldplay is going to get sued out of existence. This is the destructive nature of copyright we find ourselves in today, and in my view it hinders creativity more than it aids it.
If there was a reasonable monopoly to copyright, say, 15yrs. Then, that would really fuel creativity.
Note what the author is saying about the balance vis-a-vis economic harm and economic benefit. This is key to the discussion. Some focus solely on "economic harm" inclicted on one party whule willfully excluding economic benefit derived by another due to IP. It's not a one-sided situation.
And for grins, let's click on the "protection of ideas" link at the bottom:
@ollymc Hypocrisy is actually a death metal band, so watch out lol
But apart from that, @texrat explains certain aspects of IP-law pretty well. I do not want to offend you on a personal level, but to me it is obvious that you don't quite understand how the market and indeed the world as a whole works (in terms of products -> income -> new products -> income (etc etc). The incentive for innovation is to make money, this is how it's been throughout the ages. I might not like that personally, but it is a reality. A well-working juridical system will grant a healthy climate for new innovation. Having no system at all will not boost innovation, aka the kind of innovation that takes millions and millions of $US to develop.
I am not talking about operating systems (I love Linux and use it daily myself), not music (I have written a tune or two) or movies. I am talking about more complex innovation just to make it more clear (even if previously mentioned items is no small feat.).
If we step away from IP law (sic), then we might as well abolish the use of money as well while we're at it. In other words, be realistic. You're reaching for rainbows.
@hypocrisy: please read an introductory book to scientific and technological innovation through history. You are confussing your ignorance about how the world worked before, say, the 20th century, with the necessity of the world working the way it does now. Also "operating systems" ane "complex innovation" of the highest order, which just proves the point that the perceived need of IP laws to create innovation is just a social construct to protect the interests of some and not a real need.
@ollymc
Copyright does NOT protect ideas, in any shape or form, as long as they exist in your mind. You are free to use anyone's material in any way you want to, for whatever purpose, as long as you do so in your mind.
What IS protected, is a specific expression of these ideas that you have in your mind, in the way that when you for example put them down on paper as a text, notes, perform a concert by playing an instrument, or alike.
It is when you realize the ideas, as in turning them into in some way, a "tangible" expression, that they get protection.
By tangible, I don't necessarily mean physical form like a book or a photograph, but to include an arranged form like for example the bits that makes up an MP3 on a data carrier like a flash chip or alike.
The copyright law is not a muddy law - in fact, it is very clear, unlike many other laws.
While I myself rely on copyrights for my living, i realize that they need an overhaul to fit into the modern world, and i think that the protection needs to be shortened, to say 10-15 years, with no extension before it goes into public domain, but then, the protection as such, while active, should be made stronger and clearer, and it should not only also be set to include the concept of fair use (excerpts for criticism, media transformation (cd to mp3, dvd to tape or whatever) for example, but also include a limitation in that you can not try to limit the rights the public has in conjunction with the copyrights by adding DRM etc.
A work applying DRM, should lose it's copyright protection, as it limits what can legally be done with it under the copyright laws, and the author would have to chose either the copyright or the DRM path, but not the two at the same time.
In any case, the copyright is there for the protection of the creators rights, as the works created are of a different nature than physical objects.
Where physical objects can not be copied exactly, the objects like the text from a a book, a photograph, a song etc can, and it would be a snap for someone to take the work and sell it as his/hers own at a price far below what the creator can, as he/she did not have the overhead in terms of time and effort to create it.
Without copyright at all:
Assume you spend 2 years writing a book, and once you publish it, i take it, stick it in the printer, and sell it for half your price.
I will outperform you with your own work, as I won't have to pay for the time it took to write the book, but i will reap all the benefits, and you get nothing, and you don't have anything to come back at me with, for ripping you off.
Do you think this is fair?
and don't come up with the sleaze drivel about "there will be ppl doing it for free anyway!".
Yes, there will be, but what will the quality be?
Will the really good authors spend the time to write another book, if they get nada for it? Even they will have to eat, live and so on, and i doubt they will dedicate their life to serving others for nothing, if there is an alternative..
It takes time and effort to become good at something, and sometimes, it takes costly tools as well, to produce the things, like cameras, musical instruments (no, they don't come for free! - they have to be paid for!)
Ollymc, tell me why you think you should be able to consume others work efforts for free?
Would you object to me taking the result of your work and making the profit, leaving you with nothing, just because I think it's right?
If you do object, why? Since you claim it's ok to take others work, so shy should yours be protected?
And then we get to the eternal question of: why should copyright holders get paid for copies over time, and not just one copy? after all, they still have the original???
Well, shy should car makers get paid for their cars, after all, they still have the blueprints?
I know it's a slightly unfair analogy, as the car sample involves a physical object, but there is something in common - both the car and the piece of music, the photo or something immaterial represents a value to the buyer, and for you to have a copy, you have to offer something in trade.
For physical objects, which is the result of thought, labor and raw materials, we have the laws regarding property, theft and so on, and these laws has been there since well before immaterial laws.
Since trade of immaterial objects has a value, and is something fairly new, the copyright was subsequently created as a middle way in favor of both society and the creator, to offer some protection, in similar ways of physical objects for the creator, but some rights retained for the society, and this, just because it is an immaterial object.
The copyright law is the only thing that stands in the way between me, the creator and others wanting to take it for free, without paying me for my work.
Just like with physical objects, I have no right to get paid - I only get paid of you want what i have to sell, but then again, if you don't pay for what i have, you have no right to use it, regardless if it is a physical or immaterial object in question.
How much? That is up for negotiations.
I can demand a million for whatever, and you are free to decline paying, but in any case, you STILL have no right to take what i have based on your concept of me overcharging. You have the right NOT to buy in to my terms, and go somewhere else, leaving me with nothing, despite my claim for a million, for something you think may be worth 75c.
The pirates needs to understand that without protection and people actually paying for what they consume in one way or another, the creation of these things will eventually dry up, or become mediocre and bland because the really good creators just don't see it worthy anymore.
At the same time, the industry behind the creators, and sometimes the creators themselves, needs to understand the market they operate in, and offer their products in formats and ways that is proper for the time and day, and not to try to lock people in.
Copyright may not be perfect, but for now, it is the only thing authors, photographers, musicians, artists and so on have to protect them from getting ripped off, and until we come up with something better that respects both sides, and get a common understanding that these people actually need to get paid for their work, in order to create it, and not just take the results of their work with the plain stupid argument "but i havn't taken anything! it's a copy! They still have the original!".
Both customers and producers must meet in the middle ground, but today, a few has created a severely dysfunctional market, and i am not talking only about the music giants, but also the major pirates,. that think it's okey doing it on a massive, almost industrial scale.
I never opposed the occasional copy for a friend of any of my creations, but i would be well pissed off if a company like bilderking took one of my pictures and sold thousands of copies without paying me, enjoying the profits of my work.
It's time you read up on what Copyright actually means, and try to understand the concept, instead of just having some random ideas about what it is about.
@Texrat: "real need" means that IP laws are required to have quality scientific, technological or artistic innovation, which is obviously false and can be refuted in 15 seconds with any history textbook. They might be needed to have relatively big segments of the population living off their past creations, but that's another and very different debate. I don't mind people supporting some kind of Intellectual Property legislation if they think it will have a positive impact in society, but I DO mind shortcircuiting any rational debate about it with the "oh my God all innovation will stop if we repel IP laws" crap.
@xan: sorry, that's still pure opinion. Try the 15 seconds from the textbook.
And let's get past the "IP legislation" part of the argument... the core concept is engraved in the US constitution. All legislation does is try to apply it to the times.
@Texrat: opinion? The Iliad was created when not only there wasn't any concept of IP or copyright but when wholesale plagiarism was seen as a perfectly valid way of artistic creation. It's probably among the best literature ever created by human beings.
That probably wasn't even 10 seconds.
And believe it or not Human History does not begin with the US constitution.
@xan What is best: Being able to earn a living on your work or have to beg for charity? You do know how society worked back then, but also in more modern times, say the medieval ages? Kings were paying artists, thus the Kings' good will kept these artists alive and able to do their work.
So, with tongue in cheek: Are you wishing for a feudal society?
@hypocrisy: uh, I already said there might be a valid case for IP laws if the point is the improve society by allowing some people to live off their past creations. Do I think the current laws are good? No. Do I think people creating things deserve support? Yes, and I do support artists I like. Do I think you are intellectually dishonest by suggesting that disliking the current IP laws is the same than wishing for a Feudalism comeback? Oh boy, you can be sure of that.
"Intellectual property" is a government-created fantasy. Property is not property unless it is tangible.
The spread of ideas is like one candle lighting another -- sharing my candle's flame with you does not diminish my own. The only reason for "intellectual property" laws is to create artificial scarcity.
Do I think creators deserve compensation for their work? Sure. Do I think that laws should exist to punish those who do not go along with this? Nope.
The exception would be if you take another's work and present it as your own -- this is fraud. Simply copying another's work for your own use is not theft, as he has not been deprived of it.
@Bishop, the "tangible" part has already been covered. See above.
There ARE tangible renditions of IP. Again, it is NOT the idea being protected. It's unfortunate that this belief persists (and more so that even authorities have fostered that misconception).
Your arguments are also mere opinion, as the law has it that copyright violation is indeed theft. Also, IP does not exist solely "to create artificial scarcity". That may be a consequence, but it is not a motive.
Again: if enough people want the law changed, fine-- use the legal mechanisms at your disposal. But trying to assert that one's personal disagreement with current law actually trumps said law is a bit silly, and that is a constant underlying theme in this neverending debate.
@xan: I see an axle-wrap forming. If I did not communicate clearly enough I apologize, but you are misunderstanding what I said and I am not sure ATM how I could reword it...
My point is that "intellectual" property absolutely differs from "actual" property in the fact that it is intangible. There is a very real difference between "stealing" the tangible expression of a creation, and copying that tangible expression. Theft is not theft if the original owner still has the object. There can be no stealing if something is "non-rivalrous", as it's called in economic terms.
Sure, my arguments are opinion. But then, so is law. The only difference between my opinion and the "law's" opinion is that law has the backing of goons with guns and badges. Unless you're talking about causing tangible damage to the life, liberty, or property of another person, law is just some jerk's opinion.
"The exception would be if you take another's work and present it as your own -- this is fraud. Simply copying another's work for your own use is not theft, as he has not been deprived of it."
If i were to take your book, not claiming it was mine, just taking it and selling it to the public (this would be my own use of your work, without protection for your work) for 1/2 the price of what you, the creator, that has to cover the costs involved in creating it, it would not be fraud, as it doesn't involve deception, and yet, i would have deprived you the creator of the potential gain of your own work, by using your own work to outperform you in the marketplace.
The way things are today, means that joe public won't give a damn about who sells it, but only where they can get a copy for the least money, and for all that counts in practice, this simply means that they wouldn't buy the book off you, if they could get it from me for half the price... Yet, someone, could undercut me, and boot me out of the market, all the way down to giving it away for free, like the pirates.
For an economy to work, people must be paid for what they do - it is as simple as that.
They way it looks now, is that just about everyone demands the artists to produce the music/movies/photos/.... they want, but they won't pay them for the work.
How long do you think this will last, before they say - screw this! - and goes to do something else?
For it to be fraud, there has to be deception, and if there are no laws protecting the eventual expression of thoughts, i could say that i had the same thoughts, and since you can't prove you were first by having the protection of first publish, it would be very hard in practice to claim fraud in relation to immaterial objects.
@Starport: Yeah, that could happen. Would be unfortunate. But would it be stealing? I still don't think so. And yes, eventually it would be available free. That's the nature of ideas. :)
To paraphrase Bruce Schneier, trying to make ideas not free is like trying to make water not wet. Intellectual property is inherently information. And the very nature of information is that you get it from someone, it doesn't take it away from that person. The only thing that has diminished is the artificial scarcity created by you controlling that information.
Bottom line; if you don't want information you have created to be copied, don't give it to anyone. Just as the only way to keep a secret is to not tell anyone about it. :)
@Bishop: law is more than mere opinion. It is a codified foundation for societies.
Your analysis is simply a cynical summation that ignores the benefits of law. If one were to apply your belief broadly then suddenly all law has no beneficial basis and we're left with anarchy. Oops.
Anyway, as an artist, writer and musician I'm much too passionate about this subject so I'll shut up (finally). ; )
@Bishop: a final word before I bail: it is NOT ideas that are being stifled! I can't understand why a few of you are so stubbornly dogmatic on that mistake. You really, really need to explore the subject further to understand what's really at stake here, and why there IS a fundamental difference between an idea (ethereal, unprotectable) and the expression/rendition of an idea (tangible, protectable).
Without that understanding, participants in this dialog are at a disadvantage, because (sorry) they are just flat wrong.
@Startport: by mixing for-profit industrial scale piracy with non-for-profit copying of data with copyright (which is completely different stuff, free software depends on copyright to exist and grants the right to make copies of it to anyone) with the basic need for people to earn their living you are just preaching to the choir and alienating people with good intentions but that find the current setup obnoxious.
Those are all different topics that deserve different treatments, and I don't think you are doing anyone any favour by dumping everything in the same "IP Laws" bag with a touch of the "OMG won't someone think of the children^wartists" conversation killer.
@Texrat: Remember, I am the resident anarcho-capitalist. So saying "we're left with anarchy" as if it's a bad thing, doesn't sway me. :P
And as a writer and photographer, I have studied this concept in depth. Just because my analysis of it differs from yours does not mean I am "flat wrong". Sorry. We simply differ in our beliefs of whether non-rivalrous goods can be considered "property".
As a matter of fact, I would say that true free market capitalism is the only real form of anarchy. But perhaps that discussion deserves its own thread.
But can you deny that what i am saying would be the net effect if we did away with copyright, regardless of what plane we look at it?
I did say that I made a difference between the occasional copy between close friends (which i as content creator don't mind), and the uncontrolled free-for-all copying (which i heavily oppose).
In the end, not everyone are mega-artists and gets gazillions, but for the absolute majority of content creators, the copyright law is the only line between a complete rip-off and their food on the table.
Disregarding scales of things for a second:
WHY is it so hard to accept that you should pay for something, that someone spent time creating if you want it, and just not take it just because you can?
Immaterial objects has a value in the same way a physical object has, if someone wants it.
For all practical purposes and intents, if you take outcome of someones work and you don't pay for it, you could just as well have dipped into their wallet, as it is obvious that the object has a value to you, and that you took it against the will of the creator, without reimbursing him/her for the obvious trade value it has.
WHY do you want so badly to put me out of a job?
That is the core question that comes out of your argumentation...
As a sidenote for your information: I have not dumped it all into the same bag - i have only discussed copyright so far, and no, it is not the same thing as patents, trademarks etc.
@Starport: In some ways, your concerns answer themselves. A person who copies creative work and does not compensate the creator, runs the risk of driving a creator whose work they value, out of the business. It's in their own interest to compensate the creator for the value they received from the creative product.
However, I do still oppose making that compensation something enforceable by the men with guns and badges. If I copy a creative work, it is absolutely nothing like "dipping into their wallet" -- I have not actually taken anything from them except the potential of forcing me to pay what they think they should be compensated. If you are that concerned about being paid by every individual who enjoys your work, you should be opposed to libraries as well.
Bottom line, I have no desire to put you out of a job. But I believe the job is yours to find an appropriate model to share your work with consumers and be compensated for it, rather than depending on the State.
@Startport: I don't have any particular interest in putting you out of a job. If you pretend to enforce by law your right to live indefinitely off the copies made of your work technological progress might put you off your job though. Maintaining the status quo against progress appealing to people's emotions has never worked, never will. The current model and ideas around culture transmission are based on the notion that making copies of things is hard and expensive. This is no longer true, and sooner or later reality will kick in and those without a viable model to survive will be left without options. Records, Radio, VCR, all were going to destroy artists and culture when they arrived, it hasn't happened and people have always managed to invent new ways of living off their art. Get on with the program!
There are artists that allow anyone to copy their work and that live off people willingly giving them money because they enjoy their work, public performances, selling tangible copies (CDs, books, ...) of the work, subscription models, etc. That might or might not work for you, I don't know, but claiming that it's impossible is ludicrous.
Anarchists who say that capitalists can't be anarchists, are like Catholics who say that Protestants can't be Christians. They're too stuck on the idea that the original anarchists were socialist, and can't conceive that the anarchist ideas can evolve in other directions and be refined by other ideas.
@Bishop is correct on that one: anarchy exists at the extreme left OR the extreme right-- once the controls for those ideological states break down (which usually happens just after the last straw of restrictive law is dumped on the struggling citizen camel's back)
I think the mistake that socialist anarchists make is in insisting that anarchism requires the renunciation of all authority. Anarcho-capitalists recognize that even within anarchy, people can voluntarily enter into hierarchical relationships.
@Bishop: seriously, wtf. Anarchism opposes all forms of coercion, which is involuntary authority of one over another. Socialist anarchists could enter voluntary situations of authority all the time, most probably based on merit. It just happens that some people don't think you can have a pure free market economy without any kind of coercion but, paraphrasing The Dude, "that's, like, their opinion man".
I find it funny that you are offended by anarcho-socialists denying the validity of your ideas and right after that you just go and do exactly the same thing to them.
@Bishop: I suppose you take comfort in knowing you guys are not really different then... except that You Are Right(tm) and He Is Wrong(tm), of course ;)
>> "If you pretend to enforce by law your right to live indefinitely off the copies made of your work technological progress might put you off your job though."
You seem to have missed a crucial point i made earlier, about changing the copyright legislation to last only for 10-15 years, after which it goes into public domain, and in return, give the protection a little bit stronger status while it runs, as well as incorporate the "fair use" and exclude DRM at the same time.
It is not like I am asking to live indefinitely off a single work, on the contrary, i am actually asking to limit the runtime of copyrights, compared to what it is now, and i am one of the people living off them.
Please take your time to read what i write.
I for one, would highly welcome a service in relation to film and music, where i pay a fixed fee every month, for talking sake say €50, and then get to download whatever my drive and connection can take, and the artists get compensated out of this, as a percentage of related to the amount downloaded of their works, of the total..
In the end, you only have 24 hours a day to enjoy the material you download...
That would likely be a more fair solution to both artists and consumers, than it is today, and you would get properly coded tracks, with no crap cuts, mashed files or other problems.
I'm not gonna argue points any more, but I did find this quote from a court decision:
"while we recognize that an abstract idea as such may not be the subject of a property right, yet when it takes upon itself the concrete form which we find in the instant case, it is our opinion that it then becomes a property right subject to sale"
(Williamson v. N.Y. Central R.R., 16 N.Y.S.2d 217, 258 App. Div. 226 (1939) ; Bailey v. Haberle-Congress Brewing Co., 193 Misc. 723, 85 N.Y.S.2d 51 (1948 ) ; Masline v. New York, New Haven and Hartford R.R., 95 Conn. 702, 112 Atl. 639 (1921) ; contra Brunner v. Stix, 352 Mo. 1225, 181 S.W.2d 643 (1944).)
@Startport: I already acknowledged the possibility of creating those improved/different laws, and what you described is essentially the same I said on my comment, so I'm not sure who is not reading who.
I just pointed out your (your as in "you guys", not you specifically) most egregious comments, like the notion that IP laws are a requirement for innovation (the rebutal for my comment was "you are not right but I can't put into words why", which is great stuff), or claiming that if I don't support the current legislation I support a) Feudalism b) That authors shouldn't get any retribution c) Mass-scale for-profit piracy.
For what is worth, I already use subscription models to support artists I like, even when I can get their stuff for free, so if you'd welcome that there's absolutely no reason why you shouldn't just start using it.
@xan
Subscriptions:
There's no solutions that i know of, that works in a practical way in Europe, and the ones available in US, is most often not available outside.
Patents:
I have a my name on a couple of granted patents, and a bunch pending.
Knowing what i know today about the whole process, i just can't be bothered about the whole thing, as it's more hassle dealing with all the legalities and the costs of the whole thing. Why i did it in the first place, was not for my own desire, but the investors demands.
Had it not been for this process, we would have gone further than we are today, as we would not have spent countless time on getting the bloody things patented, entertaining patent lawyers and everyone around them, not to speak of the authority officials which sometimes is little more than delusional crackpots.
To me, i think it has been more of a hinderence than resource, and i am the inventor that is supposed to benefit from it.
I've found it to be a waste of space and time, and please don't get me started on software patents...
Trademarks:
Yep, got that as well, and one pending.
As they are similar to copyrights, but for a different purpose, i can see the need for them,as it helps the consumer (you!) in knowing that a certain brand or product is what it is, and not joe blow trading falsely under someone else's name.
(at least, he can get done for it...)
Out of the three, i can see a definite need for copyrights and trademarks, but patents has become more of a problem than a solution in today's world.
@xan the feudalism bit was put in to try and make you realize how it used to be and how it might end up if artists aren't able to have a reasonable venue to sell their works if they so choose. @Starport has summed up it all up pretty well, and he pretty much express what I am not able to put down with such eloquence. If you read what he writes, you'll see that he's for slight reforms of how the copyright laws look today, in the markets where he (and myself) are active.
So please, @xan, don't cross your arms and say "I don't want to play" - rather engage in a constructive discussion regarding a realistic alternative that we all can agree upon, yeah?!
@hypocrisy: I'm sorry but it's not that interesting to talk with someone that does not even bother to read what you write. I've already listed alternative business models, several of which I already practice, and I've already agreed that a reform of the existing legal system might be a possibility given that there is a rational debate about it before.
As usual the future is already here, only that it's not very well distributed yet.
Also, from a sociologic point of view it's interesting to see that people feel like it's an obligation for everyone to come up with solutions to the invalidation of the "artists" business model by technological progress (to the point of passing laws to enforce the status quo), but if some guy loses his job in a factory because he's been replaced by a robot that's just the way things are.
Probably someone has written a book about that, would be interesting to read it.
@hypocrisy: sigh indeed, I've already had the conversation you are requesting with Starport a while ago. Anything to say or you'll just keep talking with a wall?
@xan You obviously don't get the point when you start to introduce factory workers and robots into the middle of everything . So, you are not only unable to grasp the context of the discussion being held, you also come off as arrogant. So yes, talking to a wall is a fitting analogy.
"it's interesting to see that people feel like it's an obligation for everyone to come up with solutions to the invalidation of the "artists" business model by technological progress (to the point of passing laws to enforce the status quo), but if some guy loses his job in a factory because he's been replaced by a robot that's just the way things are"
Let me posit a thinking exercise. If there were no government, would musicians still make music? Would writers still write novels? Would filmmakers still make films? How might they be compensated for their work in this scenario?
You're missing the point of the exercise. I'm trying to encourage speculation on how artists might be compensated without government to enforce "intellectual property", not argue about whether private banks issuing currency means they're a government.
Ah okay, I was thinking in concrete terms here. Well, if you read upwards where I mentioned how it used to be in the old times, where artists more or less had to beg to be able to paint, compose etc (what other word is there for "arbitrary income"?) + there would surely be less innovation, no or less big production movies being made and so on.
The creator should still have the choice to put a price of his/her liking on what he/she creates (if he/she wants to sell it to the marketplace) - though the creator has to adapt the price/selling methods to the market as well. When the creator and the market meets somewhere in the middle, sweet music will heard - pardon the pun ;)
So I think the best way of compensation is to find a middle ground, aka; not expect that everything should be free and not penalize one's customers either.
Consider this ancillary question -- how do people working in Free Software industries make money, since they technically can't "sell" the software they're creating?
@Bishop: By and large, we work. @qgil, @xan and myself have all worked at Nokia at some stage on the internet tablets; they sponsored some of our free software development, and we did the rest at home at 3am. For most people, it's pure self-interest: we work during the day, and hack during the night. There might be a little bit of overlap of hacking into work or vice-versa, but that's the way it goes. (This is exactly what I do currently.)
@edythemighty: Canonical sponsors almost zero free software development, and Red Hat is actually quite healthy as a company (thankfully, since their contributions to free software are absolutely invaluable).
@edythemighty: Sure, and they have a not-inconsiderable technical staff dedicated to creating Ubuntu. This is line noise compared to their staff dedicated to working on Launchpad (a proprietary web service which is then sold for profit), which is line noise compared to their other staff (support, technical writing, marketing, etc). So it's hard to draw a line between the financial fortunes of Ubuntu the distribution and Canonical the company, particularly given Canonical invest in very, very little other than packaging and its own community. Red Hat is a far more instructive example (though acquisitions like JBoss have quite massively bloated it), especially given the amount of upstream development they do to make Fedora and RHEL releases what they are.
And all the hubub you just mentioned on Canonical/Ubuntu. Large part of it comes from Mark Shuttleworth's own pocket, and even he admits Canonical/Ubuntu is a money sink that isn't turning a dime anytime soon
I've never understood where I stand it I copy a film onto DVD... Most DVD's now come with a "tax" that is sent to the artists as compensation for copying. So where does that leave me? If I don't copy I'm giving money away but if I do copy I'm breaking the law (probably several laws if we assume the dvd is encrypted).
@starport somewhere above I advocated greatly shortening copyright terms, so i am definitely with you on that. I also found your idea of being forced to choose DRM or copyright interesting. Essentially pushing DRM'd work into Trade Secret law.
@hypocrisy: Riiiight, just because I don't agree with everything you say I just "can't grasp the conversation", nevermind I managed to agree on some basic points with Starport hours before you demanded me to "enter the conversation".
Also I guess the destruction of business models by technology in the case of robotics is so different from the case of profiting from copies of artistic creations than I'm wrong but the reason I'm wrong "can't be put into words" or something.
Hehe, you got the point about the DRM and trade secret... =)
Copyright is about protection of PUBLIC works, whereas DRM maintains secrecy, hiding it away from the public, making it partially useful, and goes contrary to copyright on just about every aspect.
Copyright and DRM are not compatible, as they are trying to do the opposite of the other, and therefore, you should not be able to copyright trade secrets...
Copyrighted trade secrets? taste that... how silly does that sound?
but that is what it is about when you combine the two.. copyright and drm.
Trade secrets, DMCA ... there's a load of laws, not just in the US with similar effect that they can use to prosecute people breaching them. Keep copyright out of this.
Copyrights is a more open protocol if you would allow to call it that, that is more consumer-friendly.
I'm not so worried about the individual or a small local group making a few copies, what does tick me off, is when it becomes industrialized with major file-sharing hubs etc, spreading it to all and everyone, a right they don't have, or when used for used for commercial purposes.
File sharing, while i can understand the purpose and some useful aspects of it, I can not accept the total disrespect for other peoples property and works.
For example:
A lot of people say they love the artist and the songs they make, but they demand they give away their works for free, and start earning their money by concerts etc (something they already often do)
Where is the respect in that? Ask yourself, is it really your right to dictate how someone else should work?
Some artists don't have the capacity to do concerts all over the place, and they never will if they don't get paid for their work in the first place, and we all end up in a lose-lose situation.
@Startport: I don't think anybody demands anything, some people just think that technology has invalidated the pretense that if a digital copy can be made of something you can somehow control what people do with it. It feels like the Church expecting everyone not to have sex before marriage because it's 'wrong'. Sure, they might be right (bear with me for the sake of argument), but that just won't stop people from having sex.
So I think it's in the best interest of everyone if we just accept the fact that the rabbit is out of the hat and that infinite copies can be made for free of any information, and try to work out solutions to support the artists we like from there. Anything else just feels like wishful thinking to me, honestly. And sure, I could be wrong, and this is just my opinion.
And this goes back to what I said earlier -- trying to make bits uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet. And I think it far more enlightened to try to adapt your business model to the way reality and technology exist, than to try to use the power of the State to control how your work gets distributed.
@Bishop The saying goes "just because you can, doesn't mean you should" :) (That applies to everything in life.)
@xan I think you are missing the point @yoggel was making regarding getting some perspective on the issue of "bread on the table". I doubt that she meant that open source applications are made by teenagers with other ways of supporting themselves (aka not being forced to uphold an income to get by).
Let us (please) not argue to try and "win" the discussion, try to make it a constructive debate instead.
Oh, and anarchy boils down to men with guns (with or without badges), too.
Let's say your anarchic vision comes to pass. It won't last. It never does. Eventually lawless bullies become (ironically) the law of the land to fill the vacuum. People wanting the security of just getting by day-to-day will ultimately hire their bully of choice to ensure it. Pockets of bully-run domains emerge that will finally be reined in by a larger government of, by and for the people.
History shows this cycle over and over and over again. Thanks to base human nature and need, it will never change. Pure anarchy can not survive in any form, just as free markets can never stay totally free for long (they ultimately coalesce into protected, monopolistic fiefdoms which are in turn busted up by "men with guns and badges", ad infinitum).
I wish shining theory always rendered into glorious reality, but it doesn't. We have ample evidence; all we have to do is examine it.
I would agree that pure anarchy is not a stable configuration. What people like me would prefer to see, though, is that anarchy evolve not into authoritarian constructs such as the current nation-states, but into voluntaryist constructs where the "services" previously provided by governments are provided on a voluntary and contractual basis.
An interesting study in this is the recent history of Somalia. With the central government largely ineffective, one would think that basic services such as telecommunications and education would be unavailable. In fact, the free market economy that has developed in the absence of central government control has provided an enormous increase in both educational opportunities and telecommunications infrastructure compared to the time when Somalia did have a functioning government.
As a matter of fact, telecommunication service in Somalia is considered superior to neighboring states that do have governments in place. :)
The majority of the current "problems" that so-called experts are attributing to the lack of a central government, are actually more due to two factors - the current conflicts both internally and with Ethiopia, and the repeated attempts by international organizations such as the U.N. to force a national government upon the Somali people.
Note that I'm by no means saying that the situation in Somalia is representative of what I want, but that economic progress in the absence of government certainly can outpace that of governed regions in some ways.
As for your claim that "free markets... coalesce into protected, monopolistic feifdoms", I must wholeheartedly agree. I challenge you to find any example of a lasting monopoly that existed without government power backing it up.
Monopolies are inherently unstable in a free market, as only governmental authority is sufficient to close an industry to outsiders.
Bish, you're splitting philosophical hairs. In the absence of any government structure, one of some sort will ultimately form. And to the population, the flavor won't matter-- they'll still see the same thing from their perspective. And they'll eventually seek to overthrow it for another flavor that will ultimately taste the same.
Let's say your voluntary constructs come to pass (I see it as an utterly impossible idealistic form of communism). Again, human greed and need will conspire to ensure that some type of oppressive collective constellates. It doesn't matter what the sociopolitical landscape looks like, what form of civility-ensuring system takes hold-- monopolies naturally emerge over time. It is human nature to seek power and influence, to secure that power, and then extend that power. The most powerful member in any system seeks to dominate its competitors, and the best way to do that is absorb them.
Again, this is all well documented. Our forms of government are relatively new but we can go back through history and see that time and time again coalesced controlling entities emerge regardless of the state of the union (or lack thereof). Call them churches, kingdoms, diamond interests, global tea traders or oil barrons... the result is the same to those caught in the web.
But don't get me wrong-- I'm an idealist, too, although I think the best form of society is tribal and that such societies, if freed from warfare by invading Type As along with natural catastrophe, can stabilize and prosper for eons (proof of that, too). Which I find interesting since the universe itself favors imbalance and all forces serve to bias a system one way or another in order to create the dynamic necessary to-- oops, quantum mechanics tangent coming on! lol.
@Bishop you spoke about currency without governmental control... But tell me; Who will control things like inflation (aka the value of said currency)? The monetary issue is quite complex, and so is trade and society in general. Thus "anarchy" does not really work. (Shoutout to @texratlol)
Can we continue to be bitter at the copyright Mafia now please?! ;P
Your claim that, essentially, "If governments didn't exist, it would be necessary to create them", is simply an unproven assertion. The only reason they remain in existence so far is because the current power elites find it in their own best interest.
No, monopolies do not "naturally emerge over time". As I said before, monopolies are inherently unstable. First, they generate incentive to create alternatives to their products. The more power the monopoly has, the greater such incentive. Second, cartelization generates internal incentives to "cheat" and break up those cartels. Such situations simply don't last... unless they get the power of government behind them. (Which is not simply the use of force -- it also includes the air of "authority" which allows it to control in a greater fashion than force alone.)
I do agree that "It is human nature to seek power and influence". In contrast to the oft-repeated quote that "power corrupts", I believe that corrupt people naturally seek positions of power. My question is this -- if these statements are true, then why would we want to create governments and positions of power which they can use with a cloak of authority? Isn't this just playing into their hands?
Finally, while I do agree that history shows that governments do tend to form to control given sets of individuals and geographical regions, you must admit that the nature of these "controlling entities" has as a whole evolved over time, starting with brutal autocracies of the ancient empires, to monarchies with some distribution of power, to constitutional monarchies, to enlightened despots in the 15th century onward, to the democracies of today. I do believe that given the opportunity, the voluntary societies I speak of would be the natural evolution of power coming more and more into the hands of the masses, and less in the hands of elite individuals.
Beside monopoly there is another term you should write about, and this is "oligopoly". I think you are bright enough to realize that in some cases, a market without any control will create a very unhealthy climate for free competition.
So, there is a need for balance. I know that you have made up your mind and want to put up every kind of proof that your philosophy works, and credit to you for having made up your mind. (I can admire you for having found something to believe in and that you argue for your views in thick&thin.)
However, in practical terms - a form of government (publicly elected) is a good way to go at it to benefit as many individuals as possible.
You don't have to tell me that the world we're living in has it's major flaws. That representative democracy has it's weak points - however, it is the worst-best thing there is. If there is something better around the corner, I'd be glad to switch my opinion, but for now I settle with democracy (sic).
Btw, without going into details, I can say that a free market can be very... "oppressive" towards smaller players with a better solution than what the big players in said market segment has. If the big players say "we are happy with status quo and don't want to change a thing" (even knowing that the services they offer are misused every day, costing billions of dollars a year for the customers) and there is not a thing one can do about it - what good is the totally free market then, in effect? Free markets creates ivory towers as well... Experience will tell you that..
Bishop, please limit responses to what I actually say, thanks. I did NOT say it would be necessary to create government-- I said such things naturally arise.
And while monopolies may be unstable, they STILL do tend to naturally form, and the populace tends to suffer due to their formation (and ironically, when they collapse, too). I assert that the whole monopoly formation/destruction cycle is damaging to progress but its unavoidable in any form of socialist-capitalist hybrid system (which is really what underpins any modern form of goverment, regardless of flavor).
Finally, the incentivizing that monopolies tacitly create sounds great in theory but the power those monopolies wield in their prime tends to ultimately undermine incentives (I believe that power is behind the 2000 tech collapse, as Old Money sought to destroy the "dangerous" fast-growing influence of New Money). I could prove the point citing Microsoft as an example but that brings in a whole 'nother tangent. And of course you'd anyway say that Microsoft proves your point about inherent instability and the fading power of monopolies, whereby I would agree and point back to what I just said above. ; )
@hypocrisy: I think with respect to inflation, one of the fundamental problems is that pretty much every government currency in existence today is "fiat" currency, allowing government to arbitrarily create inflation by increasing the supply of these pieces of paper which have no inherent value.
On one hand, private currencies (such as as existed in the US until 1863), if they are proper "representative" currencies, have very stable value to the extent that they are effectively tied to stable base substances (such as precious metals). And on the other, competing private currencies provides incentive for such stability, as consumers abandon inflating currencies in favor of stable ones which will preserve their monetary assets.
The problems of inflation (and associated issues such as addressed in Gresham's Law) come about not due to natural free markets, but due to government interventions such as forced equity values of competing currencies (1863 in the US) and forced redemption value (after Bretton Woods). Central banking inherently creates these problems, which it then purports to solve. Sneaky!
@Bishop: I agree with your points. Inflation is certainly amanufatured, manipulated evil that ensures growth for some at the expense of others.
More support for a tribal system, that depends more on bartering than paper money with a made-up value.
Oh, and to those unaware: the US inflation figures are bullshit. They leave out the biggest drivers of money value erosion: housing, energy, healthcare, et al. Talk about manipulation...
Finally, I'm all for FAIR trade. Free trade rarely is. ; )
I should point out that my mind is never wholly "made up" -- if I am wrong, I want to be corrected. I don't believe I am, but my mind is not closed. :)
And as I like to say when such discussions are going on, I am pleased that we are discussing differing opinions in such a civil and friendly manner without the vicious name-calling that so often accompanies debate in online forums.
Well, the problem with FAIR trade, is defining who it is FAIR to. :)
"Fair" is an inherently loaded term, with competing interests all wanting to argue for their favorite ideas of what is truly "fair".
For just one example, take "fair trade" as it is applied to coffee. By the definition largely pushed by Fair Trade organizations, the price paid for coffee should be sufficient to sustain the farmers who are producing the coffee. In this respect, it is a "production-cost driven" method of pricing. Take the total cost it takes to grow and harvest the coffee beans, add a reasonable profit, and this must be the "fair price" on the market. It essentially ignores the other side of the coin, which is the price that the purchaser is willing to pay. They forget that both the supply and the demand are factors in pricing!
It's essentially a sense of entitlement that leads producers to think that they deserve to sell a product at a price that is sustainable. I have a friend who produces photographic prints, and is often telling me "I made $X worth of prints today", basing this on the amount of time he has invested in photo editing, printing, cutting, etc. I have to keep reminding him that his prints are worth what he is able to convince someone to pay for them. If that's less than he has put into them in time and materials, that just means that he has to reevaluate his process, not that he should be able to demand that people buy at the price he has selected.
Don't think I'm knocking Fair Trade Coffee, though. Obviously some people are willing to pay the prices generated by this mechanism, and the "warm and fuzzy" feeling they get is worth the extra cost to them. That's what's marvelous about the free market, that people are able to base their decisions on whatever tangible or intangible factors they themselves choose. (Oh no, not that word "intangible" again! :) )
@Bishop wrote:"I think with respect to inflation, one of the fundamental problems is that pretty much every government currency in existence today is "fiat" currency, allowing government to arbitrarily create inflation by increasing the supply of these pieces of paper which have no inherent value."
For easy access, I recommend a series called "Gold!" on the History Channel, where they bring up what happened in the early stages of the american state, where banks were free to issue loans / hand out printed bills on their gold reserve as they saw fit (aka freely). Didn't end too well...
I also recommend to look at what happened in the early days of the 20th century in Germany related to inflation, or look at Zimbabwe today.
For vast monetary systems to work, there should be a regulatory organ in place to be able to keep the currency (somewhat) stable, to prevent currency speculation alá Soros (read up on what happened to the Swedish krona (SEK)), to try and hinder inflation to run wild etc.
Regarding fair trade, there has to be one or more equal partners for it to be fair.
@Bishop: we should be able to avoid equivocating over defintions of "fair". It's what the mutual parties agree it is, and part of the agreement (recursively) involves a universal fairness in the first place. Surely we can agree it's highly possible and even fairly simple for diverse parties to come to consensus over fairness-- cake-cutting exercises and group theory demonstrate that.
But anyway, I can throw similar darts at free trade, so he best thing to avoid is taking a stance that My Preferred System Is Inherently Perfect. ; )
Of course, @Bishop will suggest a third party that's held in high esteem, to which his opponents will say that's a form of minarchic government, and the cycle repeats itself once more! Oh joy ¬.¬
lol @edythemighty. I knew you were somewhere, so there.
lol @hypocrisy too. Did you know recent tests of those brain-protecting gizmos were actually shown to INCREASE your susceptibility to being scanned? They act like collectors! rofl.
@grasiani: nah, he's implying that when pretty girls are around, guys think with their lower head....which is true in 99.9% of cases. Unless I missed someone, all those actively taking part in this conversation are guys.
I should point out that during the time you mention, banks essentially were encouraged to engage in fractional reserve banking, which I believe is inherently fraudulent. That, rather than an honest free market, was the real source of the problem.
Your references to early 20th century Germany and current Zimbabwe are perfect examples of a central (Government-controlled) bank flooding the monetary supply, which I would say proves rather than disproves my point. :) As a matter of fact, during such periods of hyperinflation, the population who is able will generally prefer to operate with a more stable (foreign) currency, lending credence to the "free market in currency" idea. :)
And no, I would not suggest a "higher esteemed third party" to regulate the market. I would suggest a multitude of "third parties". :)
For an example of a possible system such as this, try this article by Stefan Molyneux. (If you want to avoid his usual scathing critique of governments in general, just skip down to the section marked Dispute Resolution.) It discusses a pretty comprehensive possible system of how people could resolve their differences without resorting to government, including handling pollution and collective services such as utilities.
I like the multiple third parties bit. Very much. And the dispute resolution stuff dovetails with what I was saying about cake-slicing and game theory.
My theory on that: People these days typically have been through at least 13 years of government school, in which they're of course taught that government is beneficial and necessary. If McDonald's ran the schools, don't you think they would be touting the benefits and neccessity of their fast food restaurants?
That's the reason I think most people think government is inevitable. They've had that idea drilled into their head starting at a very early age, and are not exposed to alternatives to the Nation-State.
Oh as for government: I disagree there. I think it's the sheepish nature of the rank and file.
Consider: social theory has it that our brains can handle about 200 simultaneous close relationships. Ok, so that defines a microsociety. Given that a group that size can only tolerate 1 leader, that means for every 199 people there exists 1 potential leader.
Out of 7 billion people, that's a LOT of followers.
There are people who need and/or want to be led no matter what. Regardless of education. Regardless of personal history. Regardless of POINT in history.
Actually I think that elites, people in power, have always tried to "train" the masses to be sheepish. This is why they perpetuate governments, and this is why in the past they perpetuated ideas like monarchies and religions.
Frankly, though, I have no problem with people who "want" to be followers. Where I have a problem is when they insist that I become a follower too. :)
Some people see my attitude as some measure of arrogance, that I think I'm "above" following rules and laws. I instead feel like it's actually the humility to admit that I do not know how other people should best live their lives -- how can I? I don't know anyone well enough to be able to dictate that to them. But by the same measure, nobody else knows best how I should live my life, either.
And I think that's one way in which the DRO model shines. If people want to have their hand held and be shown how they should live, they can choose a DRO which gives them detailed rules. If not, they can opt for a DRO which lets them have a lot more independence.
A non-governmental system using the DRO model would not be the "anarchy" that many people think of, with no rules, no laws, etc. It's just that people would be choosing the set of rules and laws that suit their lifestyle, "shopping around" between DROs to find one that fits.
A DRO with more rules and restrictions would give other benefits; for example, requiring certain fire codes on your home would mean lower prices due to less risk of fire, and a DRO which restricts you from going to certain dangerous neighborhoods would lower prices because of the risk of theft or injury. If you have a gun in the home and prove to the DRO that you are trained in how to use it, they might lower your rates since their protective services would be less often needed. :)
Well @Bishop, it's not just social theory (sorry for that misleading term) so your "taught to be sheepish" meme is likely incorrect. There's actually a scientific (neurological) basis for the 200 close social contacts limit. And again: not everyone is designed to be a leader, and small groups can only tolerate 1 (alpha) at a time.
It also stands to reason that if there's a genetic basis for us to only handle around 200 close connections, then there's a genetic program to spit out 1 leader for every 200 births. For those who scoff, consider: we have a known genetic program that cranks out 51 females for every 100 births. This suggests that other human type manifestations (including sexual orientation, etc) have a definite program at their core (some theorize that gay males benefitted ancient groups by protecting females without the threat of impregnation... makes sense to me). It also indicates that the universe does indeed have a slight bias toward chaos (/me ducks from irate wimmin).
All of this suggests that the idea of the noosphere has validity, ie, that we are all connected on some subconscious level and that perhaps DNA communicates in ways we cannot imagine. I believe in synchronicity and other intangible universal systems so if you don't then just write me off as some quantum nutcase. ; )
@Bishop Now you're back saying that those who "went to school" automatically are brainwashed/dead. No offence, but please stop that - as it only makes yourself look daft.
Aside from this, I have a question for you: You speak about an honest free market earlier in the thread; How do you define an honest (and free) market? How do you create and maintain it? (especially without a regulatory organ) Bonus question how do you prevent oligopolies from forming without some form of regulatory organ (ie. juridical consequence)? If there will be a juridical consequence present, who will uphold it?
I'm looking forward to see more detailed answers, with cause and effect in them. (And no, I am not trying to put you on the spot - I am interested in your thought process here.)
along with what @hypocrisy said-- I'm sure I come across as pedantic and irritable at least half the time here, but in the end I truly enjoy this sort of exchange (hence the spam). At the very least it makes me examine my own beliefs... which occasionally results in the paradigm-shattering epiphanies that "make me look daft". ; )
@hypocrisy: I think it's overstating it to say that such people are "brainwashed" or "braindead". However, remember that the state schools start teaching children at quite a young age - five or six? - and that they are quite vulnerable and impressionable. I don't know about where you live, but in every school I have been to, the children that age are taught to chant a "pledge of allegience" to the flag, taught that policemen are brave and good, taught to sit quietly, follow the rules, don't step out of line. Call it what you will, but I see the state using its schools to create obedient followers.
As for your question about the "honest free market", I hesitate to sit here and pound out a "detailed answer" because that is inherently not what the free market is about. Lemme give you an analogy as to why.
Let's presume that for most of recorded history, governments have been in charge of making shoes. Someone comes along and says that the free market should provide for shoes. The detractors might counter with a barrage of questions -- who would decide what types of shoes to make? Who would make the shoes? How would the shoes get to market? What would the shoes cost? How many shoes would need to be made? How would these hypothetical "free market" shoe makers get their materials? Who would design the new shoes?
All of these questions are silly, because as we know, in reality nobody sits down in our free market in shoes and actually makes these decisions. The market provides an opportunity for practically anyone to get into the shoe business and try their own models and methods for filling the human need for shoes. Somehow, shoes get made, and I can go to the store and find literally hundreds of different shoes to choose from, without someone having decided how the shoe industry should work.
I look at the market itself in the same way, and I hope this answers some of your curiosity regarding my thought process: The market for shoes has certain needs - patterns for shoe design, sources for materials, labor and equipment to manufacture the shoes, transportation of shoes to shoe stores, accounting mechanisms to make sure everyone gets paid. The "free market" has certain needs as well, such as a currency for exchange, methods of contracting between parties, resolution of disputes, elimination of barriers to entry, variety of choices for consumers.
Just as there is competition in the shoe market to determine the answers to these questions, in a true free market there will be competition to determine the solutions to the needs of the market itself. DROs, or dispute courts, or some other method that I haven't thought of, will be proposed and tried, and will create a true voluntary free market by some method yet to come.
And on that note, I'm past my time to leave work, so I'm driving home. :)
Keep in mind that obedient is just a qualifier here. I think the State identifies the genetically-determined followers in public schools and then makes sure they're properly conditioned toward obedience-- not created. Leaders identified in public schools are branded as troublemakers (oh those days)... everyone knows leaders are supposed to only be cultivated in private schools. ; )
A bit tangential, but what how about this abuse of copyright by Coldplay. In fact, I think this was mentioned above somewhere, but it has become a loooonng thread.
Honestly, I think that Coldplay should be prominently promoting Satriani in their concerts and on their album but that they should also be able to do what they did here. One time, Jimi Hendrix was touring with Cream and their Sunshine of Your Love was a new song. Jimi learned it during rehearsals and played an incredible instrumental version during his opening act. Sure, Cream was pissed, but the world is the richer for his inspired rendition.
/me comes back after a release and founds... "253 comments so far"! First I thought it was a bug but it's true. Wow, thanks. Now let's see if I actually got a solution in here. ;)
This is so funny. You have discussed about everything under the sun yet the original question remains unanswered. Good you had fun, I still can't download and burn videos legally to watch them once on my old TV. ;)
Amazon: won't let me burn and I don't have Windows PC so not even viewing it offline. But wait, I'm not in th US so I can't even watch the free videos. Totally useless.
Netflix: haven't gone through it but at first sight looks like having exactly the same limitations.
I just want to watch (probably once) the interesting pictures my dear videoclub won't offer me. I could even consider paying for ownership if I would pay a fair price taking out the cost of physical support, packaging and distribution.
Now, if there would be a "Comes with Video" service offering decent image quality through a TV-Out......... I would reconsider for the first time my opinion on one or two of the many topics discussed above.
239 comments so far
maybe amazon?
11 months, 3 weeks ago by atmasphere
I know Amazon has unbox, which I tried a couple of times, but I don't know if you can burn. Quim certainly has a wish I've shared-- I especially want to legally buy music videos and burn them to DVD for my wife. No luck with a source so far (iTunes, while allowing burning of songs to CD, ironically forbids burning of videos to DVD). Opportunity for a Nokia service???
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
I was under the assumption that the DMCA/Millenium Act or whatever expressly allowed you to keep a 'backup' copy of any digital content, in which case, why couldn't you buy the disc and then rip it, provided you don't put it on any filesharing networks?
11 months, 3 weeks ago by rcadden
As long as you have purchased a legit copy of mentioned works, making a copy for yourself should fall under fair use.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
yet making a backup breaks the encryption which is against the law ... the whole thing is BS. personal use. It's yours not a rental
11 months, 3 weeks ago by atmasphere
@hypocrisy - that's what I'd thought. I realize that ripping Netflix movies is a bit of a grey area, but that's neither here nor there.
I do believe, though, that part of the law also says that in making said legit backup, you can't purposefully circumvent any DRM, isn't that correct? So basically, the labels/XXIA can circumvent your right to fair use by slapping some DRM on there, right?
This is why I pirate stuff. It's far easier to pirate than try to navigate the 'correct' way to do things. Imagine if downloading and enjoying digital music was as simple as using Hulu is? I love Hulu, and it's a situation where everyone wins.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by rcadden
ripping netflix is not grey ... Definitely illegal. Just saying
11 months, 3 weeks ago by atmasphere
Well there's Amazon MP3, Amie Street Grooveshark and a ton more. One thing that needs to change however, are the unskippable anti-piracy warnings shown on DVDs. It just annoys the heck out of you when you actually buy the damn thing.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by edythemighty
@rcadden There has been threats from certain lawyers that personal backups is illegal, but that is FUD and such personal backups are legal - even for you guys living in the USA.
Regarding circumventing the DRM, I don't think that is legal over there - but I am not 100% sure. Though, it would be retarded (truly) if anyone would get busted over making a copy of their own purchased film (for example) for their own use.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
@atmasphere Netflix is not a purchased copy, so that is brighter than the sun ;)
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
@atmasphere - If I deleted them when I canceled my subscription, would that make it legal? (Not that I'm overly concerned, just posing the question as a topic of discussion)
If not, how's that different from a Rhapsody subscription or other subscription service?
11 months, 3 weeks ago by rcadden
It is retarded, which is why I fully support #Release">torrentrical releases ;D
11 months, 3 weeks ago by edythemighty
@rcadden as you didn't purchase a copy of the movies you get via netflix, burning and keeping a copy after returning the movie is definitely not legal.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
IANAL, the boundary between "fair use" and "copy protection circumvention" appears to be a gray area in the US. I do seem to remember making backups of DVDs being ruled legal by courts as an example of fair use, but "fair use" seems to be a somewhat vague legal notion most consumers and some courts recognize and Big Content (RIAA, MPAA, now even book publishers) wants to eradicate completely.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by traecer
@rcadden subscription is a managed copy ... like the digital "download" on some new dvds ...
@hypocrisy please explain the legal download of pirated movies?
11 months, 3 weeks ago by atmasphere
@yoggel This used to be the way over here in Sweden too, though now it is criminalized to both download and upload copyrighted material you don't have the license to re-distribute.
However, it is still legal to make a copy for "a close friend" - which is quite interesting, but that is also why there is an extra fee on every DVDr/CDr/cassette sold.
@traecer What you describe is part of the "immaterial media industry's" credibility problem. Why would people feel more inclined to purchase more movies, music (sic) if the companies that they are buying mentioned goods from are treating their (potential) customers like criminals? It doesn't really work...
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
@atmasphere The digital download of the DVDs is not the same as subscription based material.
And can you rephrase the question? Or, do you mean that it was legal to download material in Sweden? Well, it used to be so that only uploading copyrighted material was illegal, but then both up/download was criminalized.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
@hypocrisy the digital download is also a managed copy ... it's "allowed" or perhaps tolerated would be a better choice
11 months, 3 weeks ago by atmasphere
@rcadden: I don't think "fair use" is actually enshrined in a actual law passed by Congress and signed by the President. It appears to be a doctrine the courts have evolved, which would be why Big Content believes they can snuff it out (someone please correct me if I'm wrong).
And the whole mess is why I've pretty much given up on the whole thing too. I do buy music from Amazon MP3 because they provide me a way to legally buy music in the way I want (high-quality MP3s w/o copy protection). But for video, I've decided to sod it all and do whatever gets me videos I want where I want them. When someone decides to attempt to address that market, I'll be there to patronize them.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by traecer
@atmasphere There is no expiration on the digital download? That is what I mean... As per end user terms, it might be the same - so you're probably right there. (Pardon for not understanding what you meant at the beginning.)
And yes, it was really legal to download stuff from the net before the downstream was made a criminal offence.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
@traecer: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
11 months, 3 weeks ago by edythemighty
@yoggel What you point out is how all these pirate card vendors (satellite) were hindered in their tracks; They circumvented the copy protection of the channels, thus such activity was deemed not legal.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
@edythemighty: I am corrected! Still, the RIAA and MPAA seem determined to use the courts and lobby Congress to limit fair use rights as much as possible.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by traecer
Technically iTunes allows you to burn videos to a Data DVD, which cannot be played on anything but a computer. That wouldn't be a total jerkaround, except that after I've burned the videos they can't be played. The DVD iTunes makes isn't even recognized by my PC afterward. I can see the "burned" region-- but the PC that made it can't. Unreal.
There's a program called tunebite that supposedly can redirect video streams to new unprotected files, but I got very poor results from numerous attempts.
Bottom line, this situation is idiotic IMO. I paid for use of the media (as a content creator myself I realize I don't own what I "bought"), and by all rights I should be able to put it into whatever viewable format I desire... as well as able to create a usable backup. I continue to believe we mostly have all of the "I want ALL of my content free" pirates for the current situation. Protection schemes are a defense mechanism.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
@texrat Indeed it is idiotic, as even if the company selling you the product can claim that you "only pay for using the product in one format" (DVD or whatever) you should still be able to use the same product on whatever format you want. If the media company/ies want to make the material format exclusive they better lower their prices per unit/format.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
@yoggel The (local) distribution deals is something that is keeping the media companies from saving themselves. If they don't start to re-negotiate the distribution agreements they (sic) all have worldwide, it will continue to go downhill and the consumers will find better venues to get their films, music etc - and those venues are places like The Pirate Bay and the like.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
It's amazing that a simple post like Quim's can evoke this old controversy. ;)
Since we've already gone down that road I'll take the opportunity to clarify some things:
-Unless you have bought an ORIGINAL work, and thus the rights that came with it, you don't own it or any derivitives. Sorry, but technically you have only paid for the privilege (not right) of enjoying a copy. Here's an appropriate analogy: if I buy an original painting, I own it (and typically all derivitive rights unless it's gone into the public domain). If i buy a print of that original, then I've simply purchased the privilege of displaying that copy. I certainly don't own the original!
-Where people tend to err is not understanding that the example above applies to recorded media as well. The law is very clear on this.
-Many Americans seem to have a HUGE misunderstanding of what rights they really hold. There is no right of the rank-and-file to own or copy created media. There IS however a very specifically enumerated right for original media creators to enjoy protection of their work, and that includes just compensation for derivitive works. Let's leave the evil middlemen out of that. :D
-The "right" of personal use and backup has been codified by legislation and Supreme Court rulings, which is close enough to true constitutionality.
All that said, I disagree with the application of the law in many cases. But I'm a content creator and no hypocrite, so I grit my teeth and abide by some really stupid laws-- however, I will continue to harrass those responsible for stupid laws and stupid protection schemes. I just wish someone (Nokia?) would make a serious stab at bettering iTunes. It's possible, and desired.
And kudos to Quim for defying the norm and trying to keep it legal.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
@Texrat - I'm not arguing with you at all. I don't mind paying for the content, I just want to be able to then enjoy it wherever and however I want, be it on my laptop, netbook, tablet, or phone.
While I agree my usage of Netflix is...er.....illegitimate, it makes me feel better (and should make others feel better) knowing that I'm at least paying for access to the content once, as opposed to simply pirating it from the get-go.
I don't mind paying for content, it just has to be easier for me to legally acquire AND ENJOY said content than to otherwise access it. I'm a paying Last.FM user, use Hulu, and a Netflix subscriber, but none of those make it dead-simple for ME to choose how/where I enjoy the content.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by rcadden
It occurred to me that items 3 and 4 appear to contradict, but that's only because I omitted details. Sorry. Item 3 refers to copy for other than personal use.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
Ricky did you feel singled-out? : p
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
@Texrat "Fair use" should still apply, and if a consumer wants to make a backup of their DVD movie or whatever, they should be explicitly allowed to do so. Not sure what you're trying to say with your earlier post, but the fact of media/distribution companies treating their customers as (near) criminals is just not "fair commerce" <- woops ;)
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
@yoggel thank god for that, and "not thank god" sometimes :P
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
Hypocrisy I agree completely and don't see that I argued against that...?
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
@yoggel that's another thing I neither stated nor implied. I did specify Americans although I admit I could have added other qualifiers, sorry.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
@texrat Then let's say that I meant that you were "overly clear" ;P (no hard feelings :))
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
I'm being objective here and looking for the overall fairness to all involved. Unfortunately, this issue has evolved into a polemic that has 2 extremes (distributers vs consumers) deeply entrenched in untenable positions. And of course through it all the creators get the ultimate shaft. Their share of the pie is steadily dwindling as two uncaring sides do battle... and the direct-to-market distribution models have yet to develop viability years after the promise.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
No prob @yoggel. I don't think content distributers really care about international fairness. That's why we have nonsense like DVD regionalization. There are international copyright "laws", with virtually no teeth. Maybe when One World Government comes, though [evil grin]...
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
Which brings up another thing: in the US this whole debacle arose years ago with VCRs. After a big battle a beautiful solution came about: simply tax the media and the proceeds go into a pool that is then distributed via agencies like BMI, SAG, ASCAP et al to content creators, participants, etc. So why don't we do likewise with CDs, DVDs and even players? I hate that common sense isn't so common...
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
The whole thing is a game here in the US, and one where the rules change depending on the situation and players involved. I can buy music legally from itunes, but only can play it where and when they say so.. Hence my computers running Ubuntu are blocked. I can buy a cd and make a backup legally, can give it to a friend legally (by some interpretations of fair use anyway), but if I EMAIL it to a friend, it isn't necessarily the same as giving them a copy. I can buy a dvd, and while I can legally make a copy of it in theory, the tools to do so circumvent DRM and are illegal currently (bit like saying you are allowed to drive with your stereo on but not allowed to have speakers in your car).
The fact of the matter is that anything you pay money for has so many restrictions on it that it amounts to renting, not buying. By definition, property ownership has to be something that you have full rights to.. You've never actually owned a DVD, song, CD, or anything else in your life, period. You've simply been renting it, and owning the media that it is on.
this isn't new. The same arguments that almost tanked the VCR business... That killed off sampling in music (listen to Paul's Boutique by the Beauties Boys.. That album would be illegal as hell by today's standards).. it all boils down to the fact that intellectual property is bunk, self-serving, and in the end has very little to do with protecting content, and everything to do with protecting revenue.
Piracy will always be a problem.. But IP laws have very little to do with piracy in the end. In the same way that gun laws do very little to keep guns out of the hands of criminals (what criminal buys a gun legally anyway?), IP laws harm consumers not pirates.. In fact they create the very ecosystems that allow piracy to thrive in the first place.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by ollymc
@ollymc, you're putting the cart before the horse. Don't blame the reaction for the action-- that violates cause-and-effect. ; )
IP laws in and of themselves harm no one (except pirates). At least, not those with a constitutional basis. The Digital Millennium nonsense is a different story, and should not be lumped in with original copyright law as it muddies the intellectual waters.
Also, interpretations are cheap. There is no legal basis for content sharing, sorry... not in the US anyway.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
Oh, and IP isn't bunk by any means, @ollymc. You're taking a cynical view I doubt you'd take if your livlihood completely depended on content creation.
Don't punish content creators for the evils of the middlemen. That's disingenuous.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
@texrat.. My point is this: in the same way that we have laws to combat crime, laws can also CREATE crime. The DMCA does just that.. Create criminals where their weren't there prior.
As for lumping the DMCA with existing IP law.. Fair point, it does have different characteristics then other IP laws.. But I maintain that intellectual property as a whole is bunk, and that the root of the problem here is the concept that such a thing as 'intellectual property' could even exist.
Though I recognise that's a whole 'nother argument ;)
11 months, 3 weeks ago by ollymc
Intellectual Property tries to give legal credence to the idea that the way words, brush strokes, or notes are arranged some how 'creates' property. My view is that this should plain and simple be a market issue, not a legal one. As a content creator, you can try to lock down your content to your hearts content.. And as a consumer I can try to circumvent that.. But neither side ought to have any business bringing the law into play. How someone thinks they can 'own' anything as ethereal as what amounts to an idea is ridiculous to me.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by ollymc
If it weren't for the laws behind what you decry, odds are the systems you're using to make these arguments might have never been created. Very ironic, don't you think? I wonder if people really think these anti-IP arguments through. Remember, that includes not just copyright but patent and trademark as well-- all based on the same principles. And this belief that music and brush strokes dont really create a protectable product is absurd. My work as a writer, artist or musician is just as valid as anyone else's as that of a cell phone inventor, for example. There is a market for those works, and I expect to be paid for the fruits of my labor by people who are willing.
Basically the anti-IP argument can be summed into this illogical statement: "SOME IP implementation and protection is improper ergo ALL IP laws are invalid." Sorry, that position is rather naive.
Oh, and laws do NOT ipso facto create crime. That is just another logical fallacy. NO ONE is forced to violate the law. That is always a choice.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
I forgot this, @ollymc: IP does NOT protect ideas. At all. I think maybe you have a severe misunderstanding of the true issue here, and that is leading your reasoning astray. I suggest you get more familiar with the issue before arguing about it on public fora. ; )
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
tko @texrat :)
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
@texrat I didn't and wouldn't say that ALL laws ipso facto create crime.. rather that some laws ex post facto turn some folks into criminals for rather trivial reasons.
As for the idea that there is a market for your work, and you expect to get paid, I have no arguments with that. However, that doesn't imply that you are entitled to legal protection to gain that payment. As I said, if you, as a content creator, can come up with ways to make it easier for people to buy your works rather then obtain them in some other way, then more power to you.. But wanting legal protection for that is a different story. There is clearly a difference between physical property and 'intellectual property' (one is physically tangible, one is not).
What is called 'Intellectual Property' also has another main difference from actual physical property.. One can be replicated, the other cannot (legally). If I see my neighbor has built a bbq in his back yard, I can build an exact copy of it in my own backyard.. Is this theft? Of course not. But if you write something, I cannot copy it (legally) because this is considered theft. Do you see the disconnect here? intellectual property somehow becomes a legal special case.. You are inventing new definitions of property to create legal protections, not creating legal protections to defend actual property.
You dismiss any argument against intellectual property because you simply accept ideas as property.. but just because YOU accept intellectual property as actual property doesn't dis,issue the very real logical problems of making a special class of property, quite literally out of thin air.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by ollymc
IP doesn't protect ideas? So I can copy your words, call them my own, and have no legal ramifications? If IP isn't protecting ideas, what is it protecting? Oh right, revenue, as I already mentioned. IP certainly doesn't protect physical media, that's actual property laws. So what exactly are you arguing it protects?
11 months, 3 weeks ago by ollymc
"IP doesn't protect ideas? So I can copy your words, call them my own, and have no legal ramifications?"
Do you really believe that?
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
@hypocrisy.. Of course I can't copy texrats blog and call them my own, he'd sue me in a heartbeat. So IP is protecting ideas for the purposes of revenue, which was my point.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by ollymc
@ollymc That depends on how much you copy. It is highly doubtful that what texrat would write here on Jaiku would be unique enough to get copyrighted, for example. (And it also depends on the Jaiku ToS)
No offense, but you should really read up on the subject. Both locally (where you are located) but also perhaps in some other countries (aka markets). Then you'll have a deeper and better understanding of the topic.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
@hypocrisy.. My point is that ANY protection for ideas is creating a very specialized view of what property is solely for the protection of profits, and that this definition of property is not even logically valid.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by ollymc
@ollymc what do you suggest then? What will pay for development of products, medicine etc? What will pay for movies being made?
I think that we all here agree that things has to be made better in terms of how (for example) copyright claims are handled (look above in this thread), but you are not being realistic.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
@hypocrisy.. Long before there were IP laws, there were medicines. Long before there were trademarks, there were companies.
If there is a market for something, if there is money to be made, people will step in to make that money. As for artistic endeavours, people will make them for the same reason people always have.. Because they enjoy it. Products that lack protections based on IP have to be developed FASTER because as soon as you release an idea, if everyone starts copying it, you have incentive to stay ahead of the curve. Drug patents, for example, keep generics off the shelf, which keeps prices artificially high due to lack of competition. Without competition, drug company development cycles are longer, since its easier to rest on your laurels when your product is legally protected. Songs that are protected by IP laws keep other artists from improving on them, altering them, without prohibitive royalties.
IP, patent law, trademarks.. All are anti-competitive to the extreme.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by ollymc
I'm checking out of this thread. Olly's been back on Jaiku for <6hrs and you've already got him all riled up about free market and whatnot.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by rcadden
I'm not looking to get into another one of these never ending arguments, but take today's "hit" band Coldplay. They've done a large amount of samplings over their career, and have gotten more popular than the artists they sampled. Basically, Coldplay is a parasite that lives off of decent, hardworking artists. Without some measure of protection from IP laws, parasites like Coldplay can just take their oodles of cash provided by big labels that sign bands like them on, and rip off the works of lesser known artists (lesser known in some circles, perhaps). Yes, there's things wrong with some of these laws, and in many cases their application, but they are not without their merits. And that's about all I'm adding, toodles. By the way, @hypocrisy went to sleep so you'll probably have to wait around 8 hours for his reply ;)
11 months, 3 weeks ago by edythemighty
LMAO @sleeping hypocrisy (thats a band name in and of itself!)..
Coldplay selling better while sampling original material is based on the fact that a.) most people have not taste, and b.) record labels are masters at marketing shit and at the same time fooling people into thinking it smells like roses.
However, you will NEVER get me to think that supression of works (i.e. Coldplay) is a valid reason to protect ideas (i.e. the original artists). For every example you can bring up where sampling caused a band that sucks (believe me, I agree that Coldplay sucks) to make money where the original didnt, there is an equal example of where an original work sucked, and someone more talented took it and made it into something better.
However, you are right, this is definitely an argument that could go on for hours, and my daughter is tugging at my sleeve for her Elmo DVD, so I'm gonna turn off my phiolosophy portion of my brain myself :).
By the way, copyright arguments aside, I happen to like your blogs @texrat, so keep up the good work!
11 months, 3 weeks ago by ollymc
@ricky.. LMAO i'm always riled up about free markets my friend ;)
11 months, 3 weeks ago by ollymc
@ollymc said: "IP, patent law, trademarks.. All are anti-competitive to the extreme"
Anticompetitive??? Extreme???
IP protection actually encourages a level competitive playing field! I think you've been drinking too much of Lawrence Lessig's polluted Koolaid.
Your argument that ALL creators should work simply out of altruistic obligation is one of the oldest examples of flawed reasoning employed in this debate. You don't speak for all of us (thank God) so while you're entitled to hold dear to absurd ideals we can rest assured your version of reality will probably never come to pass.
By the way, drug patents don't "keep" generics off the shelf-- they simply forestall their deployment. I won't support everything done in that realm (I think the failed efforts by Big Pharma to patent herbs in India was another example of idiocy) but I can sure see validity in protecting an investment.
Bottom line, the only thing extreme in this thread, @ollymc, are your hyperbolic responses to some very reasonable posts. You continue to misunderstand the subject (ie, your misguided response to the accurate "IP does not protect ideas") and I strongly suggest you get educated on this subject, as I did many years ago.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
@ollymc, I'll try to explain: IP dosn't protect ideas. I realize it's presented that way, even in some legitimate venues, but that's wrong.
IP protects the _rendition_ of an idea.
Still doubt? Think that's just semantics? Want to test it?
Try patenting an idea, and see how far you get. Seriously. See how long it takes for your patent to be rejected.
Copyrights and Trademarks don't really protect ideas, either. Every work covered by those precepts is a rendition.
You want to make the claim that artworks are nebulous, but this is false. Every painting my wife renders is comprised of a tangible media on a solid substrate. Every piece of music I create involves a pen, some paper, a guitar and ultimately a computer. It also takes a physical device to reproduce the work. It is anything but immaterial. I can't just think these things into existence.
The fruits of my creative labor, and that of my wife, are not ideas. They are the ultimate product of ideas. I can no more sell an idea than I can a wish-- but my creations FROM those ideas are certainly tangible and certainly, thanks to very old and much-tested law in our sacred US constitution, protected from unscrupulous use. I am guaranteed protection from the moment I complete a work (it does not even have to be registered). That is my right.
If you don't agree with those laws, that's fine-- you have every right (not a privilege this time!) to appeal to your representatives to amend the constitution of your country. If you have a valid case, and get enough backing, maybe your opinion will become the law of the land. But for now, if you don't abide by the law, you are a criminal or civil troublemaker. Sorry. Disagreement with the law changes nothing. Ask the judge who found me guilty of speeding even after I protested the lunacy of the speed limit on a country road. ; )
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
Sometimes IP laws apply to physical items, as well. If @ollymc makes an exact copy of his neighbor's BBQ, and that BBQ is still under patent, he has infringed the patent holder's rights.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by bogart
Absolutely correct, @bogart.
The disconnect seems to be that @ollymc is arguing for his desired scenario as if there were no current laws opposing it. But there are. There is a difference between the status quo and his desired state. Disagreement with the status quo is great-- I do it all the time in other areas! But it helps the dialog to at least recognize and acknolwedge current state, and then frame arguments accordingly.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
At least Patent law is grounded in a reasonable 20yr term for the claims covered by the patent. Copyright law has gone over the deep end with its term of life +70yrs. Perhaps it leveled the playing field at one time, but not it has been far too abused by the corporate media companies to benefit anyone.
Take the Coldplay example from above (note, I do not know anything about what they have or have not sampled, but for purposes of this, let us say they did sample heavily and got away with it). Now that their label owns the copyright of their material, you had better believe that anyone making a record sampling even a little Coldplay is going to get sued out of existence. This is the destructive nature of copyright we find ourselves in today, and in my view it hinders creativity more than it aids it.
If there was a reasonable monopoly to copyright, say, 15yrs. Then, that would really fuel creativity.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by bogart
I agree that the lastest implementation of copyright law goes too far. But again, a difference between the concept and the implementation!
I found some interesting materials on the subject that may help clear up the misconceptions of @ollymc:
http://home.att.net/~jmtyndall/usip/proptheo.htm
Note what the author is saying about the balance vis-a-vis economic harm and economic benefit. This is key to the discussion. Some focus solely on "economic harm" inclicted on one party whule willfully excluding economic benefit derived by another due to IP. It's not a one-sided situation.
And for grins, let's click on the "protection of ideas" link at the bottom:
http://home.att.net/~jmtyndall/usip/ideaprot.htm
Specifically, this text on the page:
"the 1976 Copyright Act, which made fixation in a tangible medium of expression, rather than publication, the time at which Federal rights attached"
There's the key. The idea is not being protected, but rather, its rendition. I think the word "tangible" is key too, eh? ; )
Anyway, that site is very clear and easy to follow and describes quite well what's at stake with regards to the subject. Recommended reading.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
crap, please forgive the spelling errors! yikes....lol.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
I wonder what he used to convert his law school outline to a webpage with hyperlinks... I should do that!
11 months, 3 weeks ago by bogart
@ollymc Hypocrisy is actually a death metal band, so watch out lol
But apart from that, @texrat explains certain aspects of IP-law pretty well. I do not want to offend you on a personal level, but to me it is obvious that you don't quite understand how the market and indeed the world as a whole works (in terms of products -> income -> new products -> income (etc etc). The incentive for innovation is to make money, this is how it's been throughout the ages. I might not like that personally, but it is a reality. A well-working juridical system will grant a healthy climate for new innovation. Having no system at all will not boost innovation, aka the kind of innovation that takes millions and millions of $US to develop.
I am not talking about operating systems (I love Linux and use it daily myself), not music (I have written a tune or two) or movies. I am talking about more complex innovation just to make it more clear (even if previously mentioned items is no small feat.).
If we step away from IP law (sic), then we might as well abolish the use of money as well while we're at it. In other words, be realistic. You're reaching for rainbows.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
@hypocrisy: please read an introductory book to scientific and technological innovation through history. You are confussing your ignorance about how the world worked before, say, the 20th century, with the necessity of the world working the way it does now. Also "operating systems" ane "complex innovation" of the highest order, which just proves the point that the perceived need of IP laws to create innovation is just a social construct to protect the interests of some and not a real need.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by xan
@xan: "the perceived need of IP laws to create innovation is just a social construct to protect the interests of some and not a real need"
Define "real need" then, and explain why the protection of creative works isn't one. Thanks.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
I'd say that I hit a nerve.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
Instigator after my own heart. ; )
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
@ollymc Copyright does NOT protect ideas, in any shape or form, as long as they exist in your mind. You are free to use anyone's material in any way you want to, for whatever purpose, as long as you do so in your mind.
What IS protected, is a specific expression of these ideas that you have in your mind, in the way that when you for example put them down on paper as a text, notes, perform a concert by playing an instrument, or alike. It is when you realize the ideas, as in turning them into in some way, a "tangible" expression, that they get protection.
By tangible, I don't necessarily mean physical form like a book or a photograph, but to include an arranged form like for example the bits that makes up an MP3 on a data carrier like a flash chip or alike.
The copyright law is not a muddy law - in fact, it is very clear, unlike many other laws.
While I myself rely on copyrights for my living, i realize that they need an overhaul to fit into the modern world, and i think that the protection needs to be shortened, to say 10-15 years, with no extension before it goes into public domain, but then, the protection as such, while active, should be made stronger and clearer, and it should not only also be set to include the concept of fair use (excerpts for criticism, media transformation (cd to mp3, dvd to tape or whatever) for example, but also include a limitation in that you can not try to limit the rights the public has in conjunction with the copyrights by adding DRM etc.
A work applying DRM, should lose it's copyright protection, as it limits what can legally be done with it under the copyright laws, and the author would have to chose either the copyright or the DRM path, but not the two at the same time.
In any case, the copyright is there for the protection of the creators rights, as the works created are of a different nature than physical objects. Where physical objects can not be copied exactly, the objects like the text from a a book, a photograph, a song etc can, and it would be a snap for someone to take the work and sell it as his/hers own at a price far below what the creator can, as he/she did not have the overhead in terms of time and effort to create it.
Without copyright at all: Assume you spend 2 years writing a book, and once you publish it, i take it, stick it in the printer, and sell it for half your price. I will outperform you with your own work, as I won't have to pay for the time it took to write the book, but i will reap all the benefits, and you get nothing, and you don't have anything to come back at me with, for ripping you off.
Do you think this is fair?
and don't come up with the sleaze drivel about "there will be ppl doing it for free anyway!". Yes, there will be, but what will the quality be? Will the really good authors spend the time to write another book, if they get nada for it? Even they will have to eat, live and so on, and i doubt they will dedicate their life to serving others for nothing, if there is an alternative..
It takes time and effort to become good at something, and sometimes, it takes costly tools as well, to produce the things, like cameras, musical instruments (no, they don't come for free! - they have to be paid for!)
Ollymc, tell me why you think you should be able to consume others work efforts for free? Would you object to me taking the result of your work and making the profit, leaving you with nothing, just because I think it's right? If you do object, why? Since you claim it's ok to take others work, so shy should yours be protected?
And then we get to the eternal question of: why should copyright holders get paid for copies over time, and not just one copy? after all, they still have the original???
Well, shy should car makers get paid for their cars, after all, they still have the blueprints?
I know it's a slightly unfair analogy, as the car sample involves a physical object, but there is something in common - both the car and the piece of music, the photo or something immaterial represents a value to the buyer, and for you to have a copy, you have to offer something in trade.
For physical objects, which is the result of thought, labor and raw materials, we have the laws regarding property, theft and so on, and these laws has been there since well before immaterial laws.
Since trade of immaterial objects has a value, and is something fairly new, the copyright was subsequently created as a middle way in favor of both society and the creator, to offer some protection, in similar ways of physical objects for the creator, but some rights retained for the society, and this, just because it is an immaterial object.
The copyright law is the only thing that stands in the way between me, the creator and others wanting to take it for free, without paying me for my work.
Just like with physical objects, I have no right to get paid - I only get paid of you want what i have to sell, but then again, if you don't pay for what i have, you have no right to use it, regardless if it is a physical or immaterial object in question.
How much? That is up for negotiations. I can demand a million for whatever, and you are free to decline paying, but in any case, you STILL have no right to take what i have based on your concept of me overcharging. You have the right NOT to buy in to my terms, and go somewhere else, leaving me with nothing, despite my claim for a million, for something you think may be worth 75c.
The pirates needs to understand that without protection and people actually paying for what they consume in one way or another, the creation of these things will eventually dry up, or become mediocre and bland because the really good creators just don't see it worthy anymore.
At the same time, the industry behind the creators, and sometimes the creators themselves, needs to understand the market they operate in, and offer their products in formats and ways that is proper for the time and day, and not to try to lock people in.
Copyright may not be perfect, but for now, it is the only thing authors, photographers, musicians, artists and so on have to protect them from getting ripped off, and until we come up with something better that respects both sides, and get a common understanding that these people actually need to get paid for their work, in order to create it, and not just take the results of their work with the plain stupid argument "but i havn't taken anything! it's a copy! They still have the original!".
Both customers and producers must meet in the middle ground, but today, a few has created a severely dysfunctional market, and i am not talking only about the music giants, but also the major pirates,. that think it's okey doing it on a massive, almost industrial scale.
I never opposed the occasional copy for a friend of any of my creations, but i would be well pissed off if a company like bilderking took one of my pictures and sold thousands of copies without paying me, enjoying the profits of my work.
It's time you read up on what Copyright actually means, and try to understand the concept, instead of just having some random ideas about what it is about.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Starport
beautifully said, @Starport!
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
This was probably one of the most well-articulated pieces on the topic of copyright that I've read. Well done @starport !
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
@Texrat: "real need" means that IP laws are required to have quality scientific, technological or artistic innovation, which is obviously false and can be refuted in 15 seconds with any history textbook. They might be needed to have relatively big segments of the population living off their past creations, but that's another and very different debate. I don't mind people supporting some kind of Intellectual Property legislation if they think it will have a positive impact in society, but I DO mind shortcircuiting any rational debate about it with the "oh my God all innovation will stop if we repel IP laws" crap.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by xan
@xan: sorry, that's still pure opinion. Try the 15 seconds from the textbook.
And let's get past the "IP legislation" part of the argument... the core concept is engraved in the US constitution. All legislation does is try to apply it to the times.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
Note that there are a bunch of Europeans posting in this thread, all that may have slightly different IP legislation ;)
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
@Texrat: opinion? The Iliad was created when not only there wasn't any concept of IP or copyright but when wholesale plagiarism was seen as a perfectly valid way of artistic creation. It's probably among the best literature ever created by human beings.
That probably wasn't even 10 seconds.
And believe it or not Human History does not begin with the US constitution.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by xan
@xan What is best: Being able to earn a living on your work or have to beg for charity? You do know how society worked back then, but also in more modern times, say the medieval ages? Kings were paying artists, thus the Kings' good will kept these artists alive and able to do their work.
So, with tongue in cheek: Are you wishing for a feudal society?
PS. Will you reply to @starport's post?
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
@xan: I'm saying your position is opinion, not the history.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
@hypocrisy: uh, I already said there might be a valid case for IP laws if the point is the improve society by allowing some people to live off their past creations. Do I think the current laws are good? No. Do I think people creating things deserve support? Yes, and I do support artists I like. Do I think you are intellectually dishonest by suggesting that disliking the current IP laws is the same than wishing for a Feudalism comeback? Oh boy, you can be sure of that.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by xan
@Texrat: and what was my opinion exactly other than stating that IP laws are not necessary for innovation to happen as shown by history?
11 months, 3 weeks ago by xan
"Intellectual property" is a government-created fantasy. Property is not property unless it is tangible.
The spread of ideas is like one candle lighting another -- sharing my candle's flame with you does not diminish my own. The only reason for "intellectual property" laws is to create artificial scarcity.
Do I think creators deserve compensation for their work? Sure. Do I think that laws should exist to punish those who do not go along with this? Nope.
The exception would be if you take another's work and present it as your own -- this is fraud. Simply copying another's work for your own use is not theft, as he has not been deprived of it.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Bishop
@Bishop, the "tangible" part has already been covered. See above.
There ARE tangible renditions of IP. Again, it is NOT the idea being protected. It's unfortunate that this belief persists (and more so that even authorities have fostered that misconception).
Your arguments are also mere opinion, as the law has it that copyright violation is indeed theft. Also, IP does not exist solely "to create artificial scarcity". That may be a consequence, but it is not a motive.
Again: if enough people want the law changed, fine-- use the legal mechanisms at your disposal. But trying to assert that one's personal disagreement with current law actually trumps said law is a bit silly, and that is a constant underlying theme in this neverending debate.
@xan: I see an axle-wrap forming. If I did not communicate clearly enough I apologize, but you are misunderstanding what I said and I am not sure ATM how I could reword it...
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
My point is that "intellectual" property absolutely differs from "actual" property in the fact that it is intangible. There is a very real difference between "stealing" the tangible expression of a creation, and copying that tangible expression. Theft is not theft if the original owner still has the object. There can be no stealing if something is "non-rivalrous", as it's called in economic terms.
Sure, my arguments are opinion. But then, so is law. The only difference between my opinion and the "law's" opinion is that law has the backing of goons with guns and badges. Unless you're talking about causing tangible damage to the life, liberty, or property of another person, law is just some jerk's opinion.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Bishop
@Bishop
"The exception would be if you take another's work and present it as your own -- this is fraud. Simply copying another's work for your own use is not theft, as he has not been deprived of it."
If i were to take your book, not claiming it was mine, just taking it and selling it to the public (this would be my own use of your work, without protection for your work) for 1/2 the price of what you, the creator, that has to cover the costs involved in creating it, it would not be fraud, as it doesn't involve deception, and yet, i would have deprived you the creator of the potential gain of your own work, by using your own work to outperform you in the marketplace.
The way things are today, means that joe public won't give a damn about who sells it, but only where they can get a copy for the least money, and for all that counts in practice, this simply means that they wouldn't buy the book off you, if they could get it from me for half the price... Yet, someone, could undercut me, and boot me out of the market, all the way down to giving it away for free, like the pirates.
For an economy to work, people must be paid for what they do - it is as simple as that. They way it looks now, is that just about everyone demands the artists to produce the music/movies/photos/.... they want, but they won't pay them for the work. How long do you think this will last, before they say - screw this! - and goes to do something else?
For it to be fraud, there has to be deception, and if there are no laws protecting the eventual expression of thoughts, i could say that i had the same thoughts, and since you can't prove you were first by having the protection of first publish, it would be very hard in practice to claim fraud in relation to immaterial objects.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Starport
@Starport: Yeah, that could happen. Would be unfortunate. But would it be stealing? I still don't think so. And yes, eventually it would be available free. That's the nature of ideas. :)
To paraphrase Bruce Schneier, trying to make ideas not free is like trying to make water not wet. Intellectual property is inherently information. And the very nature of information is that you get it from someone, it doesn't take it away from that person. The only thing that has diminished is the artificial scarcity created by you controlling that information.
Bottom line; if you don't want information you have created to be copied, don't give it to anyone. Just as the only way to keep a secret is to not tell anyone about it. :)
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Bishop
@Bishop: law is more than mere opinion. It is a codified foundation for societies.
Your analysis is simply a cynical summation that ignores the benefits of law. If one were to apply your belief broadly then suddenly all law has no beneficial basis and we're left with anarchy. Oops.
Anyway, as an artist, writer and musician I'm much too passionate about this subject so I'll shut up (finally). ; )
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
@Bishop: a final word before I bail: it is NOT ideas that are being stifled! I can't understand why a few of you are so stubbornly dogmatic on that mistake. You really, really need to explore the subject further to understand what's really at stake here, and why there IS a fundamental difference between an idea (ethereal, unprotectable) and the expression/rendition of an idea (tangible, protectable).
Without that understanding, participants in this dialog are at a disadvantage, because (sorry) they are just flat wrong.
Adios!
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
@Startport: by mixing for-profit industrial scale piracy with non-for-profit copying of data with copyright (which is completely different stuff, free software depends on copyright to exist and grants the right to make copies of it to anyone) with the basic need for people to earn their living you are just preaching to the choir and alienating people with good intentions but that find the current setup obnoxious.
Those are all different topics that deserve different treatments, and I don't think you are doing anyone any favour by dumping everything in the same "IP Laws" bag with a touch of the "OMG won't someone think of the children^wartists" conversation killer.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by xan
@Texrat: Remember, I am the resident anarcho-capitalist. So saying "we're left with anarchy" as if it's a bad thing, doesn't sway me. :P
And as a writer and photographer, I have studied this concept in depth. Just because my analysis of it differs from yours does not mean I am "flat wrong". Sorry. We simply differ in our beliefs of whether non-rivalrous goods can be considered "property".
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Bishop
Notes: anarchy and capitalism can't go hand in hand lol :P
Now back to regular programming ;)
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
@hypocrisy: Yeah, a lot of ignorant anarcho-socialists try to tell me that. They're wrong. :)
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Bishop
As a matter of fact, I would say that true free market capitalism is the only real form of anarchy. But perhaps that discussion deserves its own thread.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Bishop
I apologize to Quim for polluting his thread. I moved the crux of my arguments to my blog where they belong: http://tabulacrypticum.wordpress.com/2008/12/08/what-would-you-pay-for-my-ideas/
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
@xan
But can you deny that what i am saying would be the net effect if we did away with copyright, regardless of what plane we look at it?
I did say that I made a difference between the occasional copy between close friends (which i as content creator don't mind), and the uncontrolled free-for-all copying (which i heavily oppose).
In the end, not everyone are mega-artists and gets gazillions, but for the absolute majority of content creators, the copyright law is the only line between a complete rip-off and their food on the table.
Disregarding scales of things for a second:
WHY is it so hard to accept that you should pay for something, that someone spent time creating if you want it, and just not take it just because you can?
Immaterial objects has a value in the same way a physical object has, if someone wants it.
For all practical purposes and intents, if you take outcome of someones work and you don't pay for it, you could just as well have dipped into their wallet, as it is obvious that the object has a value to you, and that you took it against the will of the creator, without reimbursing him/her for the obvious trade value it has.
WHY do you want so badly to put me out of a job?
That is the core question that comes out of your argumentation...
As a sidenote for your information: I have not dumped it all into the same bag - i have only discussed copyright so far, and no, it is not the same thing as patents, trademarks etc.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Starport
@Starport: In some ways, your concerns answer themselves. A person who copies creative work and does not compensate the creator, runs the risk of driving a creator whose work they value, out of the business. It's in their own interest to compensate the creator for the value they received from the creative product.
However, I do still oppose making that compensation something enforceable by the men with guns and badges. If I copy a creative work, it is absolutely nothing like "dipping into their wallet" -- I have not actually taken anything from them except the potential of forcing me to pay what they think they should be compensated. If you are that concerned about being paid by every individual who enjoys your work, you should be opposed to libraries as well.
Bottom line, I have no desire to put you out of a job. But I believe the job is yours to find an appropriate model to share your work with consumers and be compensated for it, rather than depending on the State.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Bishop
<<offtopic>> @Bishop You know, sometimes you make me in such a good mood :P
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
Glad to help, I guess. :)
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Bishop
@Startport: I don't have any particular interest in putting you out of a job. If you pretend to enforce by law your right to live indefinitely off the copies made of your work technological progress might put you off your job though. Maintaining the status quo against progress appealing to people's emotions has never worked, never will. The current model and ideas around culture transmission are based on the notion that making copies of things is hard and expensive. This is no longer true, and sooner or later reality will kick in and those without a viable model to survive will be left without options. Records, Radio, VCR, all were going to destroy artists and culture when they arrived, it hasn't happened and people have always managed to invent new ways of living off their art. Get on with the program!
There are artists that allow anyone to copy their work and that live off people willingly giving them money because they enjoy their work, public performances, selling tangible copies (CDs, books, ...) of the work, subscription models, etc. That might or might not work for you, I don't know, but claiming that it's impossible is ludicrous.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by xan
Anarchists who say that capitalists can't be anarchists, are like Catholics who say that Protestants can't be Christians. They're too stuck on the idea that the original anarchists were socialist, and can't conceive that the anarchist ideas can evolve in other directions and be refined by other ideas.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Bishop
@Bishop is correct on that one: anarchy exists at the extreme left OR the extreme right-- once the controls for those ideological states break down (which usually happens just after the last straw of restrictive law is dumped on the struggling citizen camel's back)
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
I think the mistake that socialist anarchists make is in insisting that anarchism requires the renunciation of all authority. Anarcho-capitalists recognize that even within anarchy, people can voluntarily enter into hierarchical relationships.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Bishop
Good god...
On topic plz, thread-jacking or not ;)
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
@Bishop: seriously, wtf. Anarchism opposes all forms of coercion, which is involuntary authority of one over another. Socialist anarchists could enter voluntary situations of authority all the time, most probably based on merit. It just happens that some people don't think you can have a pure free market economy without any kind of coercion but, paraphrasing The Dude, "that's, like, their opinion man".
I find it funny that you are offended by anarcho-socialists denying the validity of your ideas and right after that you just go and do exactly the same thing to them.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by xan
And sorry for contributing to the massive off-topic, God knows I tried to resist.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by xan
@xan; I'm not offended by anarcho-socialists doing that. I'm amused by it. They're always the ones saying things like @hypocrisy did above. :)
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Bishop
meow @bishop
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
@Bishop: I suppose you take comfort in knowing you guys are not really different then... except that You Are Right(tm) and He Is Wrong(tm), of course ;)
11 months, 3 weeks ago by xan
@hypocrisy, just making sure you knew that I'm amused, not offended. :)
(And this is why I often use the term "voluntaryist" instead of A-C.)
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Bishop
I love ivory tower discussions!
Hey, have you guys heard the one about this place called Utopia???
; )
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
@xan don't you dare copying my righteousness :( haha ;)
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
@Tex: Yeah, it's no place real. :P
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Bishop
@xan
>> "If you pretend to enforce by law your right to live indefinitely off the copies made of your work technological progress might put you off your job though."
You seem to have missed a crucial point i made earlier, about changing the copyright legislation to last only for 10-15 years, after which it goes into public domain, and in return, give the protection a little bit stronger status while it runs, as well as incorporate the "fair use" and exclude DRM at the same time.
It is not like I am asking to live indefinitely off a single work, on the contrary, i am actually asking to limit the runtime of copyrights, compared to what it is now, and i am one of the people living off them.
Please take your time to read what i write.
I for one, would highly welcome a service in relation to film and music, where i pay a fixed fee every month, for talking sake say €50, and then get to download whatever my drive and connection can take, and the artists get compensated out of this, as a percentage of related to the amount downloaded of their works, of the total.. In the end, you only have 24 hours a day to enjoy the material you download...
That would likely be a more fair solution to both artists and consumers, than it is today, and you would get properly coded tracks, with no crap cuts, mashed files or other problems.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Starport
@Starport, you write and reason so much like I do it's scaring me...
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
I'm not gonna argue points any more, but I did find this quote from a court decision:
"while we recognize that an abstract idea as such may not be the subject of a property right, yet when it takes upon itself the concrete form which we find in the instant case, it is our opinion that it then becomes a property right subject to sale"
(Williamson v. N.Y. Central R.R., 16 N.Y.S.2d 217, 258 App. Div. 226 (1939) ; Bailey v. Haberle-Congress Brewing Co., 193 Misc. 723, 85 N.Y.S.2d 51 (1948 ) ; Masline v. New York, New Haven and Hartford R.R., 95 Conn. 702, 112 Atl. 639 (1921) ; contra Brunner v. Stix, 352 Mo. 1225, 181 S.W.2d 643 (1944).)
legal opinion = law. ; )
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
@Startport: I already acknowledged the possibility of creating those improved/different laws, and what you described is essentially the same I said on my comment, so I'm not sure who is not reading who.
I just pointed out your (your as in "you guys", not you specifically) most egregious comments, like the notion that IP laws are a requirement for innovation (the rebutal for my comment was "you are not right but I can't put into words why", which is great stuff), or claiming that if I don't support the current legislation I support a) Feudalism b) That authors shouldn't get any retribution c) Mass-scale for-profit piracy.
For what is worth, I already use subscription models to support artists I like, even when I can get their stuff for free, so if you'd welcome that there's absolutely no reason why you shouldn't just start using it.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by xan
@xan Subscriptions: There's no solutions that i know of, that works in a practical way in Europe, and the ones available in US, is most often not available outside.
Patents: I have a my name on a couple of granted patents, and a bunch pending. Knowing what i know today about the whole process, i just can't be bothered about the whole thing, as it's more hassle dealing with all the legalities and the costs of the whole thing. Why i did it in the first place, was not for my own desire, but the investors demands. Had it not been for this process, we would have gone further than we are today, as we would not have spent countless time on getting the bloody things patented, entertaining patent lawyers and everyone around them, not to speak of the authority officials which sometimes is little more than delusional crackpots. To me, i think it has been more of a hinderence than resource, and i am the inventor that is supposed to benefit from it. I've found it to be a waste of space and time, and please don't get me started on software patents...
Trademarks: Yep, got that as well, and one pending. As they are similar to copyrights, but for a different purpose, i can see the need for them,as it helps the consumer (you!) in knowing that a certain brand or product is what it is, and not joe blow trading falsely under someone else's name. (at least, he can get done for it...)
Out of the three, i can see a definite need for copyrights and trademarks, but patents has become more of a problem than a solution in today's world.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Starport
Who benefits from high IP protection schemes?
http://goodmorningeconomics.wordpress.com/2007/05/15/who-benefits-from-high-ip-protections/?referer=sphererelatedcontent/
Hint: IP opponents will like it... at first. ; )
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
@xan the feudalism bit was put in to try and make you realize how it used to be and how it might end up if artists aren't able to have a reasonable venue to sell their works if they so choose. @Starport has summed up it all up pretty well, and he pretty much express what I am not able to put down with such eloquence. If you read what he writes, you'll see that he's for slight reforms of how the copyright laws look today, in the markets where he (and myself) are active.
So please, @xan, don't cross your arms and say "I don't want to play" - rather engage in a constructive discussion regarding a realistic alternative that we all can agree upon, yeah?!
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
@hypocrisy: I'm sorry but it's not that interesting to talk with someone that does not even bother to read what you write. I've already listed alternative business models, several of which I already practice, and I've already agreed that a reform of the existing legal system might be a possibility given that there is a rational debate about it before.
As usual the future is already here, only that it's not very well distributed yet.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by xan
@xan right on, way to win an argument... (sigh)
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
Also, from a sociologic point of view it's interesting to see that people feel like it's an obligation for everyone to come up with solutions to the invalidation of the "artists" business model by technological progress (to the point of passing laws to enforce the status quo), but if some guy loses his job in a factory because he's been replaced by a robot that's just the way things are.
Probably someone has written a book about that, would be interesting to read it.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by xan
@hypocrisy: sigh indeed, I've already had the conversation you are requesting with Starport a while ago. Anything to say or you'll just keep talking with a wall?
11 months, 3 weeks ago by xan
@xan You obviously don't get the point when you start to introduce factory workers and robots into the middle of everything . So, you are not only unable to grasp the context of the discussion being held, you also come off as arrogant. So yes, talking to a wall is a fitting analogy.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
"it's interesting to see that people feel like it's an obligation for everyone to come up with solutions to the invalidation of the "artists" business model by technological progress (to the point of passing laws to enforce the status quo), but if some guy loses his job in a factory because he's been replaced by a robot that's just the way things are"
Beep! Beep! Flawed analogy alert! Abort! Abort!
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
Let me posit a thinking exercise. If there were no government, would musicians still make music? Would writers still write novels? Would filmmakers still make films? How might they be compensated for their work in this scenario?
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Bishop
If there was no government, would there be a working monetary system?
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
Quite possibly. Either presume one for the sake of argument, or perhaps private banks would issue currency on their own.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Bishop
Then you'd end up with what you don't like: a government (of sorts), just a privatized ditto.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
You're missing the point of the exercise. I'm trying to encourage speculation on how artists might be compensated without government to enforce "intellectual property", not argue about whether private banks issuing currency means they're a government.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Bishop
Ah okay, I was thinking in concrete terms here. Well, if you read upwards where I mentioned how it used to be in the old times, where artists more or less had to beg to be able to paint, compose etc (what other word is there for "arbitrary income"?) + there would surely be less innovation, no or less big production movies being made and so on.
The creator should still have the choice to put a price of his/her liking on what he/she creates (if he/she wants to sell it to the marketplace) - though the creator has to adapt the price/selling methods to the market as well. When the creator and the market meets somewhere in the middle, sweet music will heard - pardon the pun ;)
So I think the best way of compensation is to find a middle ground, aka; not expect that everything should be free and not penalize one's customers either.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
Pardon my shoddy language, starting to become tired here
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
Consider this ancillary question -- how do people working in Free Software industries make money, since they technically can't "sell" the software they're creating?
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Bishop
Considering Red Hat, Canonical, etc, are losing money.... ;D
11 months, 3 weeks ago by edythemighty
Those are the companies. What about the "artists"? :)
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Bishop
@Bishop: By and large, we work. @qgil, @xan and myself have all worked at Nokia at some stage on the internet tablets; they sponsored some of our free software development, and we did the rest at home at 3am. For most people, it's pure self-interest: we work during the day, and hack during the night. There might be a little bit of overlap of hacking into work or vice-versa, but that's the way it goes. (This is exactly what I do currently.)
@edythemighty: Canonical sponsors almost zero free software development, and Red Hat is actually quite healthy as a company (thankfully, since their contributions to free software are absolutely invaluable).
11 months, 3 weeks ago by fooishbar
They don't sponsor, but they still have a product, Ubuntu, and they sell training and support.....not very well, of course
11 months, 3 weeks ago by edythemighty
@edythemighty: Sure, and they have a not-inconsiderable technical staff dedicated to creating Ubuntu. This is line noise compared to their staff dedicated to working on Launchpad (a proprietary web service which is then sold for profit), which is line noise compared to their other staff (support, technical writing, marketing, etc). So it's hard to draw a line between the financial fortunes of Ubuntu the distribution and Canonical the company, particularly given Canonical invest in very, very little other than packaging and its own community. Red Hat is a far more instructive example (though acquisitions like JBoss have quite massively bloated it), especially given the amount of upstream development they do to make Fedora and RHEL releases what they are.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by fooishbar
And all the hubub you just mentioned on Canonical/Ubuntu. Large part of it comes from Mark Shuttleworth's own pocket, and even he admits Canonical/Ubuntu is a money sink that isn't turning a dime anytime soon
11 months, 3 weeks ago by edythemighty
I've never understood where I stand it I copy a film onto DVD... Most DVD's now come with a "tax" that is sent to the artists as compensation for copying. So where does that leave me? If I don't copy I'm giving money away but if I do copy I'm breaking the law (probably several laws if we assume the dvd is encrypted).
11 months, 3 weeks ago by KevanV
@texrat did you Shepardize that decision?
@starport somewhere above I advocated greatly shortening copyright terms, so i am definitely with you on that. I also found your idea of being forced to choose DRM or copyright interesting. Essentially pushing DRM'd work into Trade Secret law.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by bogart
@edythemighty: not sure I see your point - if Canonical folded today, it would have a negligible impact on free software development.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by fooishbar
Shepardize???
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
Ah, nvm, looked it up. No I didn't Shepardize, I ran across the citation in an article I found on the subject.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
@hypocrisy: Riiiight, just because I don't agree with everything you say I just "can't grasp the conversation", nevermind I managed to agree on some basic points with Starport hours before you demanded me to "enter the conversation".
Also I guess the destruction of business models by technology in the case of robotics is so different from the case of profiting from copies of artistic creations than I'm wrong but the reason I'm wrong "can't be put into words" or something.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by xan
@yoggel: sure, because all open source contributors are 18-year olds. please do some basic research before you start getting condescending.
@xan: i think it's pretty much pointless.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by fooishbar
@fooishbar: well, all X developers ARE 18 year old living with their parents right? I mean, how else could you explain...
Kidding, yay for X!
11 months, 3 weeks ago by xan
@bogart
Hehe, you got the point about the DRM and trade secret... =)
Copyright is about protection of PUBLIC works, whereas DRM maintains secrecy, hiding it away from the public, making it partially useful, and goes contrary to copyright on just about every aspect.
Copyright and DRM are not compatible, as they are trying to do the opposite of the other, and therefore, you should not be able to copyright trade secrets...
Copyrighted trade secrets? taste that... how silly does that sound? but that is what it is about when you combine the two.. copyright and drm.
Trade secrets, DMCA ... there's a load of laws, not just in the US with similar effect that they can use to prosecute people breaching them. Keep copyright out of this.
Copyrights is a more open protocol if you would allow to call it that, that is more consumer-friendly.
I'm not so worried about the individual or a small local group making a few copies, what does tick me off, is when it becomes industrialized with major file-sharing hubs etc, spreading it to all and everyone, a right they don't have, or when used for used for commercial purposes.
File sharing, while i can understand the purpose and some useful aspects of it, I can not accept the total disrespect for other peoples property and works.
For example: A lot of people say they love the artist and the songs they make, but they demand they give away their works for free, and start earning their money by concerts etc (something they already often do) Where is the respect in that? Ask yourself, is it really your right to dictate how someone else should work? Some artists don't have the capacity to do concerts all over the place, and they never will if they don't get paid for their work in the first place, and we all end up in a lose-lose situation.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Starport
@Startport: I don't think anybody demands anything, some people just think that technology has invalidated the pretense that if a digital copy can be made of something you can somehow control what people do with it. It feels like the Church expecting everyone not to have sex before marriage because it's 'wrong'. Sure, they might be right (bear with me for the sake of argument), but that just won't stop people from having sex.
So I think it's in the best interest of everyone if we just accept the fact that the rabbit is out of the hat and that infinite copies can be made for free of any information, and try to work out solutions to support the artists we like from there. Anything else just feels like wishful thinking to me, honestly. And sure, I could be wrong, and this is just my opinion.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by xan
And this goes back to what I said earlier -- trying to make bits uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet. And I think it far more enlightened to try to adapt your business model to the way reality and technology exist, than to try to use the power of the State to control how your work gets distributed.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Bishop
@Bishop The saying goes "just because you can, doesn't mean you should" :) (That applies to everything in life.)
@xan I think you are missing the point @yoggel was making regarding getting some perspective on the issue of "bread on the table". I doubt that she meant that open source applications are made by teenagers with other ways of supporting themselves (aka not being forced to uphold an income to get by).
Let us (please) not argue to try and "win" the discussion, try to make it a constructive debate instead.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
^ good point. I got caught up in that myself due to passion over the topic. I usually prefer to debate toward consensus (ie, solutions)...
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
@hypocrisy: And I agree with you -- just because you can get men with guns and badges to help you acquire money, doesn't mean you should. :P
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Bishop
The "guns and badges" phrase is rank inciteful hyperbole unbefitting a man of your intelligence, Bish. ; )
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
All "government" boils down to men with guns and badges. Most people are simply unwilling to take "government" to its logical conclusion.
It's not hyperbole; it's reality.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Bishop
It's both. You just choose to focus on the most cynical view.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
I'm not a cynic; I'm a critic. :)
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Bishop
Oh, and anarchy boils down to men with guns (with or without badges), too.
Let's say your anarchic vision comes to pass. It won't last. It never does. Eventually lawless bullies become (ironically) the law of the land to fill the vacuum. People wanting the security of just getting by day-to-day will ultimately hire their bully of choice to ensure it. Pockets of bully-run domains emerge that will finally be reined in by a larger government of, by and for the people.
History shows this cycle over and over and over again. Thanks to base human nature and need, it will never change. Pure anarchy can not survive in any form, just as free markets can never stay totally free for long (they ultimately coalesce into protected, monopolistic fiefdoms which are in turn busted up by "men with guns and badges", ad infinitum).
I wish shining theory always rendered into glorious reality, but it doesn't. We have ample evidence; all we have to do is examine it.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
Oops, now I'm the cynical one. ; )
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
I would agree that pure anarchy is not a stable configuration. What people like me would prefer to see, though, is that anarchy evolve not into authoritarian constructs such as the current nation-states, but into voluntaryist constructs where the "services" previously provided by governments are provided on a voluntary and contractual basis.
An interesting study in this is the recent history of Somalia. With the central government largely ineffective, one would think that basic services such as telecommunications and education would be unavailable. In fact, the free market economy that has developed in the absence of central government control has provided an enormous increase in both educational opportunities and telecommunications infrastructure compared to the time when Somalia did have a functioning government.
As a matter of fact, telecommunication service in Somalia is considered superior to neighboring states that do have governments in place. :)
The majority of the current "problems" that so-called experts are attributing to the lack of a central government, are actually more due to two factors - the current conflicts both internally and with Ethiopia, and the repeated attempts by international organizations such as the U.N. to force a national government upon the Somali people.
Note that I'm by no means saying that the situation in Somalia is representative of what I want, but that economic progress in the absence of government certainly can outpace that of governed regions in some ways.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Bishop
As for your claim that "free markets... coalesce into protected, monopolistic feifdoms", I must wholeheartedly agree. I challenge you to find any example of a lasting monopoly that existed without government power backing it up.
Monopolies are inherently unstable in a free market, as only governmental authority is sufficient to close an industry to outsiders.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Bishop
Er, that should read "wholeheartedly disgree" in the last comment.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Bishop
Bish, you're splitting philosophical hairs. In the absence of any government structure, one of some sort will ultimately form. And to the population, the flavor won't matter-- they'll still see the same thing from their perspective. And they'll eventually seek to overthrow it for another flavor that will ultimately taste the same.
Let's say your voluntary constructs come to pass (I see it as an utterly impossible idealistic form of communism). Again, human greed and need will conspire to ensure that some type of oppressive collective constellates. It doesn't matter what the sociopolitical landscape looks like, what form of civility-ensuring system takes hold-- monopolies naturally emerge over time. It is human nature to seek power and influence, to secure that power, and then extend that power. The most powerful member in any system seeks to dominate its competitors, and the best way to do that is absorb them.
Again, this is all well documented. Our forms of government are relatively new but we can go back through history and see that time and time again coalesced controlling entities emerge regardless of the state of the union (or lack thereof). Call them churches, kingdoms, diamond interests, global tea traders or oil barrons... the result is the same to those caught in the web.
But don't get me wrong-- I'm an idealist, too, although I think the best form of society is tribal and that such societies, if freed from warfare by invading Type As along with natural catastrophe, can stabilize and prosper for eons (proof of that, too). Which I find interesting since the universe itself favors imbalance and all forces serve to bias a system one way or another in order to create the dynamic necessary to-- oops, quantum mechanics tangent coming on! lol.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
@Bishop you spoke about currency without governmental control... But tell me; Who will control things like inflation (aka the value of said currency)? The monetary issue is quite complex, and so is trade and society in general. Thus "anarchy" does not really work. (Shoutout to @texrat lol)
Can we continue to be bitter at the copyright Mafia now please?! ;P
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
To take your points seriatim:
Your claim that, essentially, "If governments didn't exist, it would be necessary to create them", is simply an unproven assertion. The only reason they remain in existence so far is because the current power elites find it in their own best interest.
No, monopolies do not "naturally emerge over time". As I said before, monopolies are inherently unstable. First, they generate incentive to create alternatives to their products. The more power the monopoly has, the greater such incentive. Second, cartelization generates internal incentives to "cheat" and break up those cartels. Such situations simply don't last... unless they get the power of government behind them. (Which is not simply the use of force -- it also includes the air of "authority" which allows it to control in a greater fashion than force alone.)
I do agree that "It is human nature to seek power and influence". In contrast to the oft-repeated quote that "power corrupts", I believe that corrupt people naturally seek positions of power. My question is this -- if these statements are true, then why would we want to create governments and positions of power which they can use with a cloak of authority? Isn't this just playing into their hands?
Finally, while I do agree that history shows that governments do tend to form to control given sets of individuals and geographical regions, you must admit that the nature of these "controlling entities" has as a whole evolved over time, starting with brutal autocracies of the ancient empires, to monarchies with some distribution of power, to constitutional monarchies, to enlightened despots in the 15th century onward, to the democracies of today. I do believe that given the opportunity, the voluntary societies I speak of would be the natural evolution of power coming more and more into the hands of the masses, and less in the hands of elite individuals.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Bishop
Beside monopoly there is another term you should write about, and this is "oligopoly". I think you are bright enough to realize that in some cases, a market without any control will create a very unhealthy climate for free competition.
So, there is a need for balance. I know that you have made up your mind and want to put up every kind of proof that your philosophy works, and credit to you for having made up your mind. (I can admire you for having found something to believe in and that you argue for your views in thick&thin.)
However, in practical terms - a form of government (publicly elected) is a good way to go at it to benefit as many individuals as possible.
You don't have to tell me that the world we're living in has it's major flaws. That representative democracy has it's weak points - however, it is the worst-best thing there is. If there is something better around the corner, I'd be glad to switch my opinion, but for now I settle with democracy (sic).
Btw, without going into details, I can say that a free market can be very... "oppressive" towards smaller players with a better solution than what the big players in said market segment has. If the big players say "we are happy with status quo and don't want to change a thing" (even knowing that the services they offer are misused every day, costing billions of dollars a year for the customers) and there is not a thing one can do about it - what good is the totally free market then, in effect? Free markets creates ivory towers as well... Experience will tell you that..
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
Bishop, please limit responses to what I actually say, thanks. I did NOT say it would be necessary to create government-- I said such things naturally arise.
And while monopolies may be unstable, they STILL do tend to naturally form, and the populace tends to suffer due to their formation (and ironically, when they collapse, too). I assert that the whole monopoly formation/destruction cycle is damaging to progress but its unavoidable in any form of socialist-capitalist hybrid system (which is really what underpins any modern form of goverment, regardless of flavor).
Finally, the incentivizing that monopolies tacitly create sounds great in theory but the power those monopolies wield in their prime tends to ultimately undermine incentives (I believe that power is behind the 2000 tech collapse, as Old Money sought to destroy the "dangerous" fast-growing influence of New Money). I could prove the point citing Microsoft as an example but that brings in a whole 'nother tangent. And of course you'd anyway say that Microsoft proves your point about inherent instability and the fading power of monopolies, whereby I would agree and point back to what I just said above. ; )
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
Good point about oligopolies, @hypocrisy, and my bad for neglecting the importance.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
@hypocrisy: I think with respect to inflation, one of the fundamental problems is that pretty much every government currency in existence today is "fiat" currency, allowing government to arbitrarily create inflation by increasing the supply of these pieces of paper which have no inherent value.
On one hand, private currencies (such as as existed in the US until 1863), if they are proper "representative" currencies, have very stable value to the extent that they are effectively tied to stable base substances (such as precious metals). And on the other, competing private currencies provides incentive for such stability, as consumers abandon inflating currencies in favor of stable ones which will preserve their monetary assets.
The problems of inflation (and associated issues such as addressed in Gresham's Law) come about not due to natural free markets, but due to government interventions such as forced equity values of competing currencies (1863 in the US) and forced redemption value (after Bretton Woods). Central banking inherently creates these problems, which it then purports to solve. Sneaky!
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Bishop
@Bishop: I agree with your points. Inflation is certainly amanufatured, manipulated evil that ensures growth for some at the expense of others.
More support for a tribal system, that depends more on bartering than paper money with a made-up value.
Oh, and to those unaware: the US inflation figures are bullshit. They leave out the biggest drivers of money value erosion: housing, energy, healthcare, et al. Talk about manipulation...
Finally, I'm all for FAIR trade. Free trade rarely is. ; )
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
I should point out that my mind is never wholly "made up" -- if I am wrong, I want to be corrected. I don't believe I am, but my mind is not closed. :)
And as I like to say when such discussions are going on, I am pleased that we are discussing differing opinions in such a civil and friendly manner without the vicious name-calling that so often accompanies debate in online forums.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Bishop
wtf are you talking about you sorry dog?????!!!?
: p
(seriously, same here. I've learned a LOT on these subjects just in the past few years)
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
Well, the problem with FAIR trade, is defining who it is FAIR to. :)
"Fair" is an inherently loaded term, with competing interests all wanting to argue for their favorite ideas of what is truly "fair".
For just one example, take "fair trade" as it is applied to coffee. By the definition largely pushed by Fair Trade organizations, the price paid for coffee should be sufficient to sustain the farmers who are producing the coffee. In this respect, it is a "production-cost driven" method of pricing. Take the total cost it takes to grow and harvest the coffee beans, add a reasonable profit, and this must be the "fair price" on the market. It essentially ignores the other side of the coin, which is the price that the purchaser is willing to pay. They forget that both the supply and the demand are factors in pricing!
It's essentially a sense of entitlement that leads producers to think that they deserve to sell a product at a price that is sustainable. I have a friend who produces photographic prints, and is often telling me "I made $X worth of prints today", basing this on the amount of time he has invested in photo editing, printing, cutting, etc. I have to keep reminding him that his prints are worth what he is able to convince someone to pay for them. If that's less than he has put into them in time and materials, that just means that he has to reevaluate his process, not that he should be able to demand that people buy at the price he has selected.
Don't think I'm knocking Fair Trade Coffee, though. Obviously some people are willing to pay the prices generated by this mechanism, and the "warm and fuzzy" feeling they get is worth the extra cost to them. That's what's marvelous about the free market, that people are able to base their decisions on whatever tangible or intangible factors they themselves choose. (Oh no, not that word "intangible" again! :) )
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Bishop
@Bishop wrote:"I think with respect to inflation, one of the fundamental problems is that pretty much every government currency in existence today is "fiat" currency, allowing government to arbitrarily create inflation by increasing the supply of these pieces of paper which have no inherent value."
For easy access, I recommend a series called "Gold!" on the History Channel, where they bring up what happened in the early stages of the american state, where banks were free to issue loans / hand out printed bills on their gold reserve as they saw fit (aka freely). Didn't end too well...
I also recommend to look at what happened in the early days of the 20th century in Germany related to inflation, or look at Zimbabwe today.
For vast monetary systems to work, there should be a regulatory organ in place to be able to keep the currency (somewhat) stable, to prevent currency speculation alá Soros (read up on what happened to the Swedish krona (SEK)), to try and hinder inflation to run wild etc.
Regarding fair trade, there has to be one or more equal partners for it to be fair.
K.I.S.S.
PS. Copyright evil monster talk, phwz :D
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
Actually @hypocrisy not all fair trade partners need to be equal, but they need to treat each other as such.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
In the real world, we all know that the big boy will step on every ant he can find...
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
@Bishop: we should be able to avoid equivocating over defintions of "fair". It's what the mutual parties agree it is, and part of the agreement (recursively) involves a universal fairness in the first place. Surely we can agree it's highly possible and even fairly simple for diverse parties to come to consensus over fairness-- cake-cutting exercises and group theory demonstrate that.
But anyway, I can throw similar darts at free trade, so he best thing to avoid is taking a stance that My Preferred System Is Inherently Perfect. ; )
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
@hypocrisy: yes, but we're talking about what we'd like to see, not necessarily what is.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
Posts in this thread at times makes me think about this :D
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
Btw, how can we regulate trade (aka so that the big boy won't step on the ant) without a third party watching over the market?
bing bing bing We have found the contradiction of the day ;P (please make your bets for tomorrow's COTD)
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
Of course, @Bishop will suggest a third party that's held in high esteem, to which his opponents will say that's a form of minarchic government, and the cycle repeats itself once more! Oh joy ¬.¬
11 months, 3 weeks ago by edythemighty
Latin Mao!
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
Wherever you go, there you are.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
How do you know where I am?!
11 months, 3 weeks ago by edythemighty
because you are Latin Mao!
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
lol @edythemighty. I knew you were somewhere, so there.
lol @hypocrisy too. Did you know recent tests of those brain-protecting gizmos were actually shown to INCREASE your susceptibility to being scanned? They act like collectors! rofl.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
Hey, I only got my communist leanings after watching Mio fratello è figlio unico
11 months, 3 weeks ago by edythemighty
Greek to me.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
Pasta Mao ;D
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
Moar pasta?
11 months, 3 weeks ago by edythemighty
Oom boppa Mao Mao!
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
for @bishop: http://www.27bslash6.com/overdue.html You mean producers can't just set their prices?
11 months, 3 weeks ago by dontodd
This is one hell of a long thread. O.O
11 months, 3 weeks ago by grasiani
@dontodd:
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!! One of the funniest damn things I've ever read! David is a genius!
+100
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
ooo, @grasiani showed up. Now we can switch to the usual peacockery and be done with this intellectual rubbish.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
@texrat are you implying that I'm someone without intellect?
11 months, 3 weeks ago by grasiani
@grasiani: nah, he's implying that when pretty girls are around, guys think with their lower head....which is true in 99.9% of cases. Unless I missed someone, all those actively taking part in this conversation are guys.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by edythemighty
@grasiani: no no NO! @edythemighty got it correct. I was insulting US MEN. : ) I am sure you have just as much brains as beauty.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
I know, but eventually you dropped off
11 months, 3 weeks ago by edythemighty
@yoggel: You started, but eventually didn't post as much as the other guys! :O
11 months, 3 weeks ago by edythemighty
But now you're back, yoggel, and it got pretty. : D
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
I should point out that during the time you mention, banks essentially were encouraged to engage in fractional reserve banking, which I believe is inherently fraudulent. That, rather than an honest free market, was the real source of the problem.
Your references to early 20th century Germany and current Zimbabwe are perfect examples of a central (Government-controlled) bank flooding the monetary supply, which I would say proves rather than disproves my point. :) As a matter of fact, during such periods of hyperinflation, the population who is able will generally prefer to operate with a more stable (foreign) currency, lending credence to the "free market in currency" idea. :)
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Bishop
And no, I would not suggest a "higher esteemed third party" to regulate the market. I would suggest a multitude of "third parties". :)
For an example of a possible system such as this, try this article by Stefan Molyneux. (If you want to avoid his usual scathing critique of governments in general, just skip down to the section marked Dispute Resolution.) It discusses a pretty comprehensive possible system of how people could resolve their differences without resorting to government, including handling pollution and collective services such as utilities.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Bishop
I like the multiple third parties bit. Very much. And the dispute resolution stuff dovetails with what I was saying about cake-slicing and game theory.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
@yoggel, your joyful snowman makes my day.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
@Texrat: See, now we're making progress. :)
My whole point is to get people to stop thinking about government as fundmentally required, and instead see it as just one possible situation.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Bishop
And I like the happy snowman too! Especially since we get no snow here! (At least not until you go east far enough to get into the mountains.)
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Bishop
I still think government is inevitable. : P
/me ducks and runs
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
Speaking of ducking and running: MAN did this thread develop legs! I am amazed.
And Quim is no doubt scanning it during his lunch hour, munching his reindeer + lingonberries and shaking his almost-shaven head at our insanity.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
My theory on that: People these days typically have been through at least 13 years of government school, in which they're of course taught that government is beneficial and necessary. If McDonald's ran the schools, don't you think they would be touting the benefits and neccessity of their fast food restaurants?
That's the reason I think most people think government is inevitable. They've had that idea drilled into their head starting at a very early age, and are not exposed to alternatives to the Nation-State.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Bishop
We're still not up to the level of the obscenity thread so far. Still some work to do. :)
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Bishop
We are flirting with spam territory.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
Although we are #3 on the active conversations screen!!
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Bishop
Oh as for government: I disagree there. I think it's the sheepish nature of the rank and file.
Consider: social theory has it that our brains can handle about 200 simultaneous close relationships. Ok, so that defines a microsociety. Given that a group that size can only tolerate 1 leader, that means for every 199 people there exists 1 potential leader.
Out of 7 billion people, that's a LOT of followers.
There are people who need and/or want to be led no matter what. Regardless of education. Regardless of personal history. Regardless of POINT in history.
Again, human nature. It's inescapable.
signed,
A wannabee leader
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
Actually I think that elites, people in power, have always tried to "train" the masses to be sheepish. This is why they perpetuate governments, and this is why in the past they perpetuated ideas like monarchies and religions.
Frankly, though, I have no problem with people who "want" to be followers. Where I have a problem is when they insist that I become a follower too. :)
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Bishop
Some people see my attitude as some measure of arrogance, that I think I'm "above" following rules and laws. I instead feel like it's actually the humility to admit that I do not know how other people should best live their lives -- how can I? I don't know anyone well enough to be able to dictate that to them. But by the same measure, nobody else knows best how I should live my life, either.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Bishop
And I think that's one way in which the DRO model shines. If people want to have their hand held and be shown how they should live, they can choose a DRO which gives them detailed rules. If not, they can opt for a DRO which lets them have a lot more independence.
A non-governmental system using the DRO model would not be the "anarchy" that many people think of, with no rules, no laws, etc. It's just that people would be choosing the set of rules and laws that suit their lifestyle, "shopping around" between DROs to find one that fits.
A DRO with more rules and restrictions would give other benefits; for example, requiring certain fire codes on your home would mean lower prices due to less risk of fire, and a DRO which restricts you from going to certain dangerous neighborhoods would lower prices because of the risk of theft or injury. If you have a gun in the home and prove to the DRO that you are trained in how to use it, they might lower your rates since their protective services would be less often needed. :)
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Bishop
Well @Bishop, it's not just social theory (sorry for that misleading term) so your "taught to be sheepish" meme is likely incorrect. There's actually a scientific (neurological) basis for the 200 close social contacts limit. And again: not everyone is designed to be a leader, and small groups can only tolerate 1 (alpha) at a time.
It also stands to reason that if there's a genetic basis for us to only handle around 200 close connections, then there's a genetic program to spit out 1 leader for every 200 births. For those who scoff, consider: we have a known genetic program that cranks out 51 females for every 100 births. This suggests that other human type manifestations (including sexual orientation, etc) have a definite program at their core (some theorize that gay males benefitted ancient groups by protecting females without the threat of impregnation... makes sense to me). It also indicates that the universe does indeed have a slight bias toward chaos (/me ducks from irate wimmin).
All of this suggests that the idea of the noosphere has validity, ie, that we are all connected on some subconscious level and that perhaps DNA communicates in ways we cannot imagine. I believe in synchronicity and other intangible universal systems so if you don't then just write me off as some quantum nutcase. ; )
Wow: OT to the max!
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
Oh crap, it just occurred to me: since the gender type bias is toward women, that +1 that gives them the edge is in all probability the leader!
: O
/me decides to avoid 1) further philosphical exploration and 2) pissing off the ladies
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
So.... you're saying women should be the ones in charge? :P
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Bishop
Why not?
11 months, 3 weeks ago by edythemighty
@Bishop: that is the only logical conclusion.
!
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
I have no more objection to women being in charge than I do to men being in charge. Read into that what you will. :)
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Bishop
@Bishop Now you're back saying that those who "went to school" automatically are brainwashed/dead. No offence, but please stop that - as it only makes yourself look daft.
Aside from this, I have a question for you: You speak about an honest free market earlier in the thread; How do you define an honest (and free) market? How do you create and maintain it? (especially without a regulatory organ) Bonus question how do you prevent oligopolies from forming without some form of regulatory organ (ie. juridical consequence)? If there will be a juridical consequence present, who will uphold it?
I'm looking forward to see more detailed answers, with cause and effect in them. (And no, I am not trying to put you on the spot - I am interested in your thought process here.)
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
juridical ie judicial - late here, again :)
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
along with what @hypocrisy said-- I'm sure I come across as pedantic and irritable at least half the time here, but in the end I truly enjoy this sort of exchange (hence the spam). At the very least it makes me examine my own beliefs... which occasionally results in the paradigm-shattering epiphanies that "make me look daft". ; )
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
@texrat Looking daft is something I'd get rich from if I decided to bill the people for my stupidity ;)
11 months, 3 weeks ago by hypocrisy
If you ever figure out how to make THAT work let me know!
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
@hypocrisy: I think it's overstating it to say that such people are "brainwashed" or "braindead". However, remember that the state schools start teaching children at quite a young age - five or six? - and that they are quite vulnerable and impressionable. I don't know about where you live, but in every school I have been to, the children that age are taught to chant a "pledge of allegience" to the flag, taught that policemen are brave and good, taught to sit quietly, follow the rules, don't step out of line. Call it what you will, but I see the state using its schools to create obedient followers.
As for your question about the "honest free market", I hesitate to sit here and pound out a "detailed answer" because that is inherently not what the free market is about. Lemme give you an analogy as to why.
Let's presume that for most of recorded history, governments have been in charge of making shoes. Someone comes along and says that the free market should provide for shoes. The detractors might counter with a barrage of questions -- who would decide what types of shoes to make? Who would make the shoes? How would the shoes get to market? What would the shoes cost? How many shoes would need to be made? How would these hypothetical "free market" shoe makers get their materials? Who would design the new shoes?
All of these questions are silly, because as we know, in reality nobody sits down in our free market in shoes and actually makes these decisions. The market provides an opportunity for practically anyone to get into the shoe business and try their own models and methods for filling the human need for shoes. Somehow, shoes get made, and I can go to the store and find literally hundreds of different shoes to choose from, without someone having decided how the shoe industry should work.
I look at the market itself in the same way, and I hope this answers some of your curiosity regarding my thought process: The market for shoes has certain needs - patterns for shoe design, sources for materials, labor and equipment to manufacture the shoes, transportation of shoes to shoe stores, accounting mechanisms to make sure everyone gets paid. The "free market" has certain needs as well, such as a currency for exchange, methods of contracting between parties, resolution of disputes, elimination of barriers to entry, variety of choices for consumers.
Just as there is competition in the shoe market to determine the answers to these questions, in a true free market there will be competition to determine the solutions to the needs of the market itself. DROs, or dispute courts, or some other method that I haven't thought of, will be proposed and tried, and will create a true voluntary free market by some method yet to come.
And on that note, I'm past my time to leave work, so I'm driving home. :)
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Bishop
Keep in mind that obedient is just a qualifier here. I think the State identifies the genetically-determined followers in public schools and then makes sure they're properly conditioned toward obedience-- not created. Leaders identified in public schools are branded as troublemakers (oh those days)... everyone knows leaders are supposed to only be cultivated in private schools. ; )
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
Damn, I killed the thread! : O
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Texrat
A bit tangential, but what how about this abuse of copyright by Coldplay. In fact, I think this was mentioned above somewhere, but it has become a loooonng thread.
Honestly, I think that Coldplay should be prominently promoting Satriani in their concerts and on their album but that they should also be able to do what they did here. One time, Jimi Hendrix was touring with Cream and their Sunshine of Your Love was a new song. Jimi learned it during rehearsals and played an incredible instrumental version during his opening act. Sure, Cream was pissed, but the world is the richer for his inspired rendition.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by bogart
Nah, you didn't kill it; I went home for the day and didn't check jaiku.
As for this being a long thread, it's only 252 comments (including this one). That ain't nothin' yet.l :)
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Bishop
As for the issue of schools cultivating obedience, give any of the books by John Taylor Gatto a read. They're quite insightful.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by Bishop
/me comes back after a release and founds... "253 comments so far"! First I thought it was a bug but it's true. Wow, thanks. Now let's see if I actually got a solution in here. ;)
Reading...
11 months, 3 weeks ago by qgil
This is so funny. You have discussed about everything under the sun yet the original question remains unanswered. Good you had fun, I still can't download and burn videos legally to watch them once on my old TV. ;)
Amazon: won't let me burn and I don't have Windows PC so not even viewing it offline. But wait, I'm not in th US so I can't even watch the free videos. Totally useless.
Netflix: haven't gone through it but at first sight looks like having exactly the same limitations.
I just want to watch (probably once) the interesting pictures my dear videoclub won't offer me. I could even consider paying for ownership if I would pay a fair price taking out the cost of physical support, packaging and distribution.
Now, if there would be a "Comes with Video" service offering decent image quality through a TV-Out......... I would reconsider for the first time my opinion on one or two of the many topics discussed above.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by qgil
Welcome to Jaiku.
11 months, 3 weeks ago by rcadden
@rcadden ROFLMAO
11 months, 3 weeks ago by WaveyDavey001