I'm torn
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| nalf38 Aug 30, 2006 12:59 PM EDT |
I'm perfectly happy buying an alternative portable music player that works with Amarok. I think most people who use Linux for philosophical reasons are the same way. But the kind of people ESR is trying to woo to Linux aren't like us. They're the people who 'just want an iPod,' and they want it to 'just work.' It's not a philosophy, it's more like an anti-philosophy. They don't want to be burdened with giving hardware compatibility any thought whatsoever. Personally I completely agree with MJ's article, but he's preaching to the choir; the fact that I agree with him isn't going to convert anyone new to Linux. I also am not sure if I think that Open Source vs. Proprietary codecs is a zero sum game, e.g. it's not necessarily an either/or situation. I prefer Ogg / Flac / Speex / Theora and use them for all of my media archiving, but I use RealPlayer to stream NPR and other internet radio sites, and my conscious is relatively clear. Despite the fact that the codec is closed, Real has gone out their way to make sure their player works with all the Xiph.org formats. |
| techiem2 Aug 30, 2006 1:15 PM EDT |
>I'm perfectly happy buying an alternative portable music player that works with Amarok. I think most people who use Linux for philosophical reasons are the same way. But the kind of people ESR is trying to woo to Linux aren't like us. They're the people who 'just want an iPod,' and they want it to 'just work.' Exactly. Which is, in fact, how I went about shopping for a portable media player earlier this year. It HAD to support ogg, and it HAD to work flawlessly in linux. I ended up getting a Cowon iAudio X5 20GB. However, I do see the point for the so called "just want an iPod" crowd, who just want it to work and don't care about philosphy and proprietariness (well, obviously, they bought an iPod...) and such. Still, I cringe whenever I have to resort to using proprietary drivers for something. (which fortunately isn't very often) |
| tuxchick2 Aug 30, 2006 1:38 PM EDT |
Good comments and good article. In a nutshell, ESR is saying that Linux and FOSS need to stop being what they are in order to cater to a userbase that doesn't care about them in the first place. Crazy, man. "You can't legally watch DVDs, Windows Media Files or Quicktime on a Linux box." That's not a Linux problem, but a problem of mental illness and or bribery in Congress. |
| jimf Aug 30, 2006 1:47 PM EDT |
> Crazy, man. Acutally that should be 'crazy man'... |
| nalf38 Aug 30, 2006 1:55 PM EDT |
Isn't that kind of a chicken/egg conundrum? Most of my friends are immediately drawn to my computer screen when they first see it and love the look, feel, and speed of KDE/Gnome on a relatively old 2ghz celeron machine. It's only after I tell them what you *can't* do with it (legally, anyway) that they lose interest. You don't think that if those issues were resolved that Linux would seem a viable alternative to more mainstream users? You raised a great point about DVD playback. DVD playback, despite legal issues, is so ubiquitous in Linux that I actually forgot that I was playing them 'illegally' by using Xine. I agree on the congressional comment. My argument about Proprietary vs. Open Source codecs not being a zero sum game goes both ways. I think legislators need to realize that legislating DRM doesn't have to be about legislating Fair Use and free codecs out of existence. |
| techiem2 Aug 30, 2006 2:09 PM EDT |
heh.
Of course, if you just want to bypass the whole illegal DVD thing, you could just hook a dvd player up to your TV tuner/capture card.....(that way you'd even have a remote to use - without trying to get lirc working!). |
| jimf Aug 30, 2006 2:36 PM EDT |
> Isn't that kind of a chicken/egg conundrum? Well not quite nalf38. If we use the GPL as our guide we may (temporarily I think) loose some functionality, and, a few users in the basest sense. If, on the other hand, we accept the meshing of proprietary pieces in Linux, we really won't have Linux any more. In the end, Linux, and the GPL protecting all of our rights, has nothing to do with 'market share'. That's something that will or won't happen. It's a whole other issue and perspective. I repeat, Eric Raymond is questionably a friend of Linux and certainly not of the GPL... Crazy man indeed, he should stick to his neopagan coven. |
| jdixon Aug 30, 2006 6:14 PM EDT |
> In a nutshell, ESR is saying that Linux and FOSS need to stop being what they are in order to cater to a userbase that doesn't care about them in the first place. Yeah, someone should suggest to ESR that he needs to stop advocating guns in order to cater to the gun control crowd. I'm sure he'd agree whole heartedly. |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 30, 2006 6:42 PM EDT |
Rather than an iPod, I bought a Sharp Zaurus that runs Linux. It doesn't sync at all. |
| dcparris Aug 30, 2006 6:57 PM EDT |
> Rather than an iPod, I bought a Sharp Zaurus that runs Linux. It doesn't sync at all. Sorry to hear about that. I recall some of these devices running Linux, but not working with Linux. I haven't figured out for the life of me what kind of idiot does such a thing. Sharp apparently found them though. ;-) I bought the iAudio U3 from Cowon because it plays OGG, shows pictures, stores data files, and syncs with SUSE/Ubuntu. They even advertise that it works with GNU/Linux. |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 30, 2006 7:03 PM EDT |
Yeah, well, it was 2001. What I do is use a USB CF card reader to read/write the file from/to the Zaurus. Works just fine. I had hoped that enough geeks would get the Zaurus that the OpenZaurus project would take wings, but alas no. I tried installing it, and it's even less functional than the Zaurus standard software. |
| jdixon Aug 30, 2006 7:22 PM EDT |
> I had hoped that enough geeks would get the Zaurus that the OpenZaurus project would take wings, but alas no. Check out the Nokia 770. |
| techiem2 Aug 30, 2006 8:40 PM EDT |
dcparris: Looks like we were thinking alike when shopping for our media players. :)
I even got a friend to switch to linux and get a Cowon iAudio X5 like I did (cept he got the bigger model.....). Oddly I use it for data storage/file transfers more than for actually listening to music and such... I have a friend with a Zaurus, never asked him if he tried syncing it with linux though. Too bad. Those were pretty nice machines. |
| jimf Aug 30, 2006 10:00 PM EDT |
> Oddly I use it for data storage/file transfers more than for actually listening to music Yeah, I end up just using a usb memory key. |
| dcparris Aug 31, 2006 6:01 AM EDT |
> Oddly I use it for data storage/file transfers more than for actually listening to music and such... Scary that. We aren't related are we? But I only used it to move some personal files from my work PC to my home box. |
| techiem2 Aug 31, 2006 6:13 AM EDT |
>Scary that. We aren't related are we? Well, I'm sure we're related SOMEWHERE along the line.... :) I use mine for home, work, everywhere else... |
| helios Aug 31, 2006 3:17 PM EDT |
Some of the statements above are the reasons and reasoning for my shift in thinking about libre environments and proprietary code being interjected into it. Yes, it does make for a more "complete" system, and yes, it does draw those who would not normally think of trying Linux...but: The point was also made that many of those who will try Linux care nothing for the battles or the struggles we face daily in making our environment both safe and practical. They would be more than happy to use this gift and leave the hard work to others. Those who "just can't be bothered" are not nearly as much of a concern to me as those who will honestly listen to the political and "battlefield" aspects of this issue. Here is the truth of the matter. We are going to need soldiers, fighters who don't mind getting bloodied in front of congressional committees and corporate zealots. I am afraid many of those who will control our destiny via their votes have a foot in each territory. No, while I teach, advocate and preach the use of linux, I am no longer one who gains new users "at any cost." Using FOSS or GNU/Linux without any envolvement in the community just produces another dead body we have to drag away after the battle. And yes, the saying applies to philosophical applications as well as real-world ones. Freedom isn't free. h |
| jimf Aug 31, 2006 4:13 PM EDT |
Well said helios. |
| dcparris Aug 31, 2006 5:28 PM EDT |
Thank you, helios. My mind is playing the Marine Corps Hymn right now, and thinking, "one shot, one kill". :-) No, I don't mean killing the Microsofties; I mean making your efforts count. |
| tuxchick2 Aug 31, 2006 5:49 PM EDT |
dcparris, can it mean shooting spammers? pretty please? |
| nalf38 Sep 01, 2006 9:01 AM EDT |
This isn't the War on Terror, it's an operating system, and a damn good one. The GPL is a great license, but it's the zealots on both sides of the argument that seem to lose sight of any sense of pragmatism. Isn't the real goal about making the best software? Yes, the GPL and open source often produce that result, but open source isn't really the main goal; it's not an end in itself. If most people had to choose between a free, closed-source piece of software for which there was no decent alternative, versus a free, open-source program of extremely poor quality and/or functionality, what would you choose? Licensing will always be a secondary issue to quality, regardless of the intent of the GPL. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 01, 2006 9:41 AM EDT |
"Licensing will always be a secondary issue to quality, regardless of the intent of the GPL." I disagree. The GPL facilitates quality in software. That's why software under the GPL advances faster, and maintains greater quality, than software under closed licenses. "...for which there was no decent alternative..." You're framing the question the way big-government pollsters frame questions: Building them to specifically create only one valid answer. I'm not sure if "leading the witness" or "begging the question" fits this example, but they're all ways of avoiding actually asking a question. |
| nalf38 Sep 01, 2006 9:53 AM EDT |
I completely agree that the GPL facilitates quality in software, but there are exceptions to the rule, and I think you basically agreed with my point that the intent of the GPL is to produce quality software, e.g. that the philosophical component of the GPL has a practical goal and is not an end in itself. The question may be framed, but there are situations that exist in just the way I described it, and as far as I'm concerned the question is still valid and makes a good point that licensing is a secondary issue to quality, or none of us would be using RealPlayer / VMWare and other quality programs with proprietary components. For that matter, if quality didn't trump licensing, there'd be no need for WINE. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 01, 2006 10:10 AM EDT |
"if quality didn't trump licensing, there'd be no need for WINE." Again I disagree. The software I run under WINE has nothing what so ever to do with quality. If that particular software is not available in native Linux, then I run it under WINE _if_ I want to run it. It may be a completely POS piece of code, I don't care. |
| jimf Sep 01, 2006 10:13 AM EDT |
> the intent of the GPL is to produce quality software Not really nalf38. As an incidental effect, 'GPL facilitates quality in software' , but, the primary purpose of the GPL is to protect the rights of users and developers. GPL is after all a contract. |
| nalf38 Sep 01, 2006 10:19 AM EDT |
Bob-- you're right about that. Point taken. jimf- I agree, but I don't think anyone would voluntarily license themselves out of using great software. Regardless of whether the effect is a primary goal or an incidental effect of the GPL, I don't think that the license would be nearly as popular as it is now without it. |
| jimf Sep 01, 2006 10:40 AM EDT |
> I don't think that the license would be nearly as popular as it is now without it. If you're saying that the evidence proves that GPL software is generally of high quality, or, even that it's usually superior to proprietary, I'd agree. |
| nalf38 Sep 01, 2006 10:52 AM EDT |
Absolutely. But I'd go a step further and say that the philosophy behind the license wouldn't get a second look if it didn't actually work in the real world. But also I'd say that there are exceptions. Good proprietary software exists for which the open source alternative is not as attractive, and I don't know if villifying users who make that choice is the right thing to do. I make my system as proprietary-free as possible, but in the end I think it's a choice, and that there are legit reasons for certain users to make a different choice. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 02, 2006 2:57 AM EDT |
"the philosophy behind the license wouldn't get a second look if it didn't actually work in the real world." I spend a lot of time dealing with repercussions of liberty. An-archy, "rule without rulers" (not chaos). The twisted thing is that it does work in the real world, every day. The greater the liberty allowed to individuals, the more peaceful and productive they are. Yet there is constant pressure against the principles of individual liberty by folks who argue that people must be _controlled_ for their own good. Because these malcontents are so loud and so obnoxious and so plain ANNOYING, laws are passed just to shut them up. Principles are *violated* for convenience. Once the principle is violated, it's gone. There is then no limit to the intrusion of the malcontents, the paranoid, the polypragmatoi who cannot tolerate the _thought_ that someone, somewhere, might at some time do something of which they disapprove. Regardless of how well the GPL works, there are multitudes of other software licenses. Why? Cannot these other people see that the GPL "actually work[s] in the real world"? Of course they can, they just don't care. The GPL gives others just too much liberty, and they are uncomfortable. They are afraid, for whatever reason. It is the _principle_ of the GPL that shines through, that reminds people of why it works. Without that principle, the GPL would not be used as widely, and would therefore not be as effective. |
| dcparris Sep 02, 2006 6:58 AM EDT |
Bob:
> The greater the liberty allowed to individuals, the more peaceful and productive they are. Have you read through the Quality is Free/Without Tears books? An example of this kind of liberty was a hotel employee who took a customer's suit to the cleaners. It had gotten dirty, but was his only suit to wear to an important meeting. In many cases, employees were expected to follow strict rules, and would not have considered themselves "free" to do such things. Yet, this employee endeared the customer to the hotel. In other words, employees were given a sense of ownership, and the freedom to do the right thing. I don't have the references to prove it, but I believe quality did improve for a number of companies that 'freed' their employees to do better. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 02, 2006 2:14 PM EDT |
I have a audio file from Mises.org that is a talk by a former student of Murray Rothbard. He talks about an entrepreneur in Idaho which he had worked for, whose name escapes me. But what he says is that the "boss", "would do anything for an employee, and in return his employees would do anything for him." "There were people who had worked for his company for 50 years and wouldn't work anywhere else." Very inspiring, and as you say a "sense of ownership", that their actions matter. Anyway, the audio file is http://www.mises.org/multimedia/MP3/mu2006/French-MC.mp3 I've found that 90% of my "jobs" have been satisfied by showing up on time and being ready to get to work. Even if I didn't always have the answer, being there and diving in, greeting a customer with a smile even if it's 05:30, people notice. |
| nalf38 Sep 02, 2006 3:47 PM EDT |
BR -- I think you go a little too far in your argument. I just can't agree that the GPL is the best license always and without exception for every computing purpose on the planet, and I can't agree that fear is the only motivator for not using it. This isn't a zero-sum game. I don't believe that just because one person uses a BSD license or even a proprietary license, that the GPL or the liberties it provides is 'gone' or under attack. Could you elaborate about laws being passed and all that stuff? I agree that present legislation and enforcement by the MPAA & RIAA goes way too far, and the simple (literally, very simple) act of bypassing DRM being illegal is completely wrong. But don't you agree, at least in principle, that piracy is wrong? Or is the GPL your answer to that---just make everything Open, and piracy ceases to exist? |
| jimf Sep 02, 2006 4:01 PM EDT |
Well, the MPAA & RIAA are just plain crazy. If anyone was rational about it, most of that stuff would be under a creative commons license. |
| nalf38 Sep 02, 2006 4:34 PM EDT |
No argument about them being completely wacko. They're fighting a losing battle. It's like Iraq--instead of winning hearts and minds, they're turning their captive audience against them with their tactics. Still, as a musician, I'd like to be reimbursed any recordings I make and sell, even if a record label gets a much larger portion than I do. As much as I hate to admit it, iTunes and their ilk have struck some middle ground: the music is dirt cheap and you can, at least with iTunes (so I hear, having never used it) make copies. The thing that completely blows is vendor lock-in; I feel like I should be able to use my iPod with Yahoo! Music or whatever. It's my mp3 (or acc or whatever) player and I should have the freedom to buy my music from wherever I please. |
| jdixon Sep 02, 2006 4:47 PM EDT |
> the music is dirt cheap... A standard CD is now $9.95 at most discounters and contains about 12 songs. That works out to be about 83 cents per song, for which you get uncompressed quality and a physical copy, usually without DRM. With Itunes, you pay 99 cents for the same song, have a lower quality copy, don't have the physical media, and it's DRM'ed out the wazoo. How is this dirt cheap? This ignores the cost of creating, shipping, and selling the physical CD's, all of which serve to increase the cost of the CD over the electronic version. A reasonable cost for an iTunes song would be something like 25 cents, not 99 cents. |
| jimf Sep 02, 2006 5:12 PM EDT |
> Still, as a musician, I'd like to be reimbursed any recordings I make and sell, even if a record label gets a much larger portion than I do. A creaqtive commons license would still protect that right, while assuring fair useage. I've started releasing some of my graphic works under that. |
| tuxchick2 Sep 02, 2006 5:40 PM EDT |
> Still, as a musician, I'd like to be reimbursed any recordings I make and sell, even if a record label gets a much larger portion than I do. why should they change their existing business model? Just think of all the starving children in the executive suites if the artists get paid. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 03, 2006 11:16 AM EDT |
"I agree that present legislation and enforcement by the MPAA & RIAA goes way too far, and the simple (literally, very simple) act of bypassing DRM being illegal is completely wrong." But _why_ is it wrong? Let me give you my answer, and see how it feels: It's wrong, because it is telling me what I may and may not do with my own property. I may not legally watch an encrypted DVD on my Linux box, yet it is my box and my DVD. Among the people I converse with on a regular basis are folks who do not believe in "intellectual" property. The foundation of this is that in order for there to be a crime, there must be injury. My action must deprive you of something. At the same time, your individual rights do not extend to other people. You do not have a "right" to my labor, my money, and I have no claim on yours. I can try to sell something, but if it is not bought from me I have not been deprived of my rights. (This is the sticking point as you can see in the citation at the end.) My use of intellectual property, for instance a chicken soup recipe, in no way deprives anyone else of their equal right to utilize that recipe, even if I make millions of copies and hand them out on street corners. My property is in no way damaged if someone else alters that recipe and then also hands it out on street corners. Or, puts it in a book and charges people for it. This is the principle by which "patent" in software is being fought. We are all accustomed to an environment of ownership of intellectual property. That even if it's my CD, my CD-R, my envelope, it instantly becomes someone else's property if I put the same information on the CD-R that is on the CD and put that CD-R in an envelope to hand to someone else. But that restriction only exists because of restrictive legislation. It's an important leap that must be made to realize that "copyright" and "patent" are artificial creations of law. Oh, and _recent_ creations as well. Indeed, there are great abuses occurring because of the absurdities to which the laws creating "intellectual property" have been taken. Could it be that these abuses are only being _seen_ now because they have been taken to extremes, but have always existed, only on a scale which made it easy to overlook? Here's the dilemma: Are the damages to innovation, to natural sharing, to "standing on the shoulders of giants" by having the ability to build on other peoples work freely, are they greater than the alledged "losses" of artists and inventors who want the government grant of monopoly on their ideas that are created by "copyright" and "patent"? How would humanity have been served by Leibnitz taking Newton to court, and having Newton's papers on calculus suppressed and Newton disallowed from teaching, because Leibnitz came up with the idea first? How would humanity have been served if Vivaldi were sued into poverty because he wrote "Variations on a Theme by Paganini" without getting permission in writing from Paganini's widow? That's why I am against copyright and patent, because they create artificial legal monopolies that do not otherwise exist, unlike actual "rights" which consist of things that can only be infringed upon (like trespassing, theft, kidnapping, pollution). BTW, I'm one of the nay-sayers! I think trademark is a GoodThing(tm), that opening a restaurant of my own deliberately made to leverage the reputation of MacDonald's Corp. restaurants, deserves to be a crime even if MacDonald's Corp property was not directly "harmed" in the process. Literally, claiming to be mine what isn't actually mine. Artists can make money the same way that artists made money prior to copyright and patent: Performance and "authorized" stuff. That which is unique to the artist, rather than mere notes on a page or bits on a disk. Of course, this puts the "record labels" out of a job, which is why the RIAA and MPAA hate the idea so much, while artists are gaining understanding and are putting music on their web sites. Here's a citation and some argument which might enlighten: http://blog.mises.org/archives/003229.asp |
| dinotrac Sep 03, 2006 12:52 PM EDT |
>Artists can make money the same way that artists made money prior to copyright Are you saying that you don't believe that most people should share in an artist's output? The era you talk about was an era before mass technology made it possible for millions (billions) to enjoy an artist's work. Maybe it's all for the best. Kids don't need to read Harry Potter, right? And Springsteen? If you can't afford the ticket, you've got no right to hear the music. The "good old days" were a time when the best artists performed and/or produced for the elite few who could afford to commission works and their circle of friends. |
| nalf38 Sep 03, 2006 4:44 PM EDT |
BR-- As a music PhD, I'm somewhat familiar with how and why copyright law came to be. But copyright and patent aren't bad in and of themselves; the fact that horrible abuses of the concept of intellectual property are being seen now is a matter of scale. Copyright law, until quite recently, always allowed us Fair Use, which includes the right to reference and pay homage to other people's works (Vivaldi/Paganini) as long as you properly attributed them, as Vivaldi did. That is increasingly no longer the case today, and that's the problem, not the basic concept of intellectual property itself. I don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bath water. If I created the notes on that page, or the bits on that particular disk (highly unlikely in my case), and that's what I do for a living, then it's my right to be compensated; someone else taking the score that I wrote and selling it for a profit is wrong. The written page of music is as much my property as my interpretation of it in performance. OK, so you buy a score of my music; it's yours. As far as I'm concerned, you can do anything you want with it---make it into a f***ing paper airplane for all I care; play it backwards. In that way, I agree with you that it's wrong that we can't watch DVDs on our Linux boxes without breaking some arbitrary law. But if you copy it and sell it at a profit, you're stealing from me, unless I expressly give you permission to do so. I'm all for making personal copies. That's Fair Use. But distributing it for a profit, or even giving copies to your friends at no cost is problematic. From where I stand, that's a 'crime,' and 'injury' has been done to me in the form of lost income. You're right---it's absurd these days what you can patent and copyright, but that doesn't make the entire institution bad. They may be artificial creations of law, but I happen to like them (again, in principle). I don't think I like your idea very much that we make money the way it was done before copyright, and it isn't because I'm greedy (well, maybe a little bit), but I don't think it would work in the absence of copyright. That's precisely the reason why copyright was adopted in the first place. In the absence of copyright (this really happened, btw) Shakespeare could premiere a new play, and within a few weeks, a rival company across town could perform the same play for cheaper ticket prices. Copyright came into being to allow time for people to profit from their original ideas. Again, I think it's a matter of scale. You shouldn't be allowed to copyright Mickey Mouse indefinitely. That's just plain wrong. But there should a reasonable amount of time for the creator to have exclusive rights to his creation. Dinotrac has a point that without copyright, we'd relegated back to the patronage system, relying on rich people who want to look good in front of their small circle of friends. Unfortunately, I don't have a patron to fall back on. |
| jdixon Sep 03, 2006 8:17 PM EDT |
> And Springsteen? If you can't afford the ticket, you've got no right to hear the music. Well, Bruce is a bad example, as his actions in the past election stated emphaticly that he considers politics to be more important that music. Given that, I have no problem with anyone who objects to copyright ripping off his music. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 04, 2006 10:17 AM EDT |
Dino, "Are you saying that you don't believe that most people should share in an artist's output?" I'm curious how you came to that conclusion. I happen to believe that people share a "culture" because of their shared experiences. Nalf, "Dinotrac has a point that without copyright, we'd relegated back to the patronage system, relying on rich people who want to look good in front of their small circle of friends. Unfortunately, I don't have a patron to fall back on." I'm curious how "performance and authorized stuff" became "patronage". However, "Patronage" is what exists now. Who was it, for example, who paid the "artist" to wrap a small island in red plastic? In comparison, a popular band is one which has been heard widely, and can command high prices for the one thing that no one else can provide and which cannot be copied: Performance, authorized T-shirts, signed CDs, dinner with the band for VIPs, the things that have always earned money for the band rather than the record label. I adore live music, and will buy a ticket regardless of whether or not I bought their music, pirated it, or only listened to it on the radio. "'injury' has been done to me in the form of lost income." Prove it. Demonstrate harm to a jury, and collect damages. Nothing about repealing copyright and patent makes fraud "legal". And as I already said, I consider passing off someone else's work as your own to be fraud. "Again, I think it's a matter of scale." Here's the source of the problem. What is *your* scale is not *my* scale, is not someone *else's* scale. Regardless of what you think is fair, it ends up being arbitrary. That is why I brought up the idea that the abuses of copyright/patent have always existed, it is merely the absurdities to which the legislation has been taken that allow everyone to see just how these monopoly grants do not actually promote invention and discovery, but retard them by allowing people to rest on their franchises. One of my more long-winded examples is General Electric Plastics. GEP's profits were made by being able to bring a material to market faster than anyone else. A manufacturer could come to GEP with a specification for a plastic, and GEP would deliver it in volume. In about a year, some other plastics maker would be delivering materials with the same specifications at a much lower price, and GEP would no longer make money on that product. But that's ok, someone would already have come to them with new specs and they would have been ramping down the old production line in favor of their new "monopoly" product. If copyright/patent were extended to the specifications of the plastic, then GEP could prevent anyone else from making something that worked the same way just as note patterns are copyrighted, and business techniques are patented. Far from encouraging innovation and invention, GEP would have no reason to be as inventive and innovative in their production and customers would have that much less variety of materials and producers to choose from. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 04, 2006 10:56 AM EDT |
"A great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It had its origin in the principles of society and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has upon man, and all parts of a civilized community upon each other, create that great chain of connection which holds it together. The landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation, prospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from the whole. Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their laws; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government. In fine, society performs for itself almost every thing which is ascribed to government." — Thomas Paine, Rights of Man [1791-1792] |
| jimf Sep 04, 2006 11:31 AM EDT |
Whoa... If Thomas Paine had submitted that for critique on LXer, history could have turned out differently :D |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 04, 2006 11:58 AM EDT |
Clinton did say one thing very true: The Declaration of Independence is a _very_ radical document, and the Constitution was radical in that it attempted to enshrine something that has never existed, a government of limited powers. Unfortunately, the anti-Federalist papers read like a laundry list of abuses of power that have come to pass, even to the point of being accepted as right and proper after having been decried by the Federalists as "absurd" and "would never happen." Paine was an anarchist in the free-market sense, not the bomb throwing chaos sense. Too bad his influence waned after the Declaration was written. In the words of Ben Franklin from the play _1776_, "The people have read Mr. Paine's 'Common Sense'. I doubt very much Congress has." I believe this is an anachronism, as Paine was not attributed to be the author of _Common Sense_ until after the Declaration was written (I think I think don't quote me). |
| jimf Sep 04, 2006 12:02 PM EDT |
> The Declaration of Independence is a _very_ radical document One that was very quickly asigned the status of 'historical document', with no legal standing... Too bad. |
| dinotrac Sep 04, 2006 12:06 PM EDT |
Interesting that you should quote Paine. Now, if you would simply abide by the philosophy.
So you'll know, statutory copyright is a relatively recent invention, but you might be surprised at its actual impact. Statutory copyright was a repudiation of common law copyright -- a doctrine holding that authors retain a perpetual interest in their works. IT wasn't a one-way street however: statutory copyright made one's rights shorter, but easier to enforce. >I'm curious how you came to that conclusion. Come on, Bob, you're smart enough to figure that out. Let's put it this way: a. Springsteen can only play so many concerts in front of so many seats. b. Not everyone can afford the tickets. You, it seems, have the resources to see the Boss, but lots of us do not. >I happen to believe that people share a "culture" because of their shared experiences. Lot of people believe that eating foods with "Lite" on the label will make them thinner, too. Shared experiences are great. But a system that takes the profit out of publishing tends to take publishing out of the picture. No way to publish? No Harry Potter. Perhaps you missed the story of impoverished single mother hitting it rich? No money in anything but live music? Who's going to lay to make high-quality well-produced recordings? Why would they bother? Copyright was enacted to benefit the public at large -- to encourage the creation and publication of works. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 04, 2006 4:10 PM EDT |
"Come on, Bob, you're smart enough to figure that out." No, I'm not. I am very much in favor of people being able to sell what they produce. I find the actions of the people distributing fan-subtitled anime, and the people who were circulating J.R.R.Tolkien's _Lord of the Rings_, quite honorable. Once the titles are available through authorized channels, they stopped with their distribution of unauthorized copies. The same communities also are very nasty to those who attempt to profit from those unauthorized materials. So are the unauthorized distributors breaking the law? Yep. Are they performing a valuable service to "society", the distribution of intellectual property that would otherwise be unavailable? Yep. That is why I do not see this as a black/white issue. "Copyright was enacted to benefit the public at large" I agree, that is the argument put forward in favor of copyright and patent. But there is a question you have not answered: Does it do what it was supposed to do? Are the benefits, weighed against the abuses, still greater than if those laws did not exist and the abuses therefore not exist? This is not a question of principle, this is a purely utilitarian question, the same kind of question that the Supreme Court recently answered in the Kelo decision which completely abrogated the 5th Amendment protection of private property. "You, it seems, have the resources to see the Boss" Irrelevant. Can your argument stand without resorting to ad hominem attacks? |
| dinotrac Sep 04, 2006 5:00 PM EDT |
>irrelevant. Can your argument stand without resorting to ad hominem attacks? Hmmm. Now, Bob, let's try to be rational. You are getting ridiculous in at least two ways: 1. The claim that my comment is irrelevant is completely wrong. You claim to believe in shared culture, and yet you advocate a position that would benefit you while hurting those who are not in your fortunate position. 2. Attack? Since when is saying that you have the resources to attend a concert an attack? I suggest you study up on the culture. Last I looked, buying concert tickets was not considered to be an evil thing. |
| jimf Sep 04, 2006 6:52 PM EDT |
Paine's assumption that the principles of society and the natural constitution of man existed prior to government, is to say the least questionable and a product of 18th century European philosophy. In truth, fairness in dealings between human beings is based on the particular ethics and morals of the people involved. Since the population is now composed of people from many different countries and backgrounds, what we have is far from the European ethos that Paine refers to. Add to that a significant number who seem to have no ethical standards, and no respect for there fellow man, and, Houston we have a problem. For good or evil, law is where human ethics meet the real world, and, where the rights that we should have and those we get are decided. It's a very poor system, but, the only one we have. so, we have to make the most of it. This has become a constant battle ground between people who want to do the right thing and those that have only selfish interests. If we aren't careful, well, it certainly wouldn't be the first time the bad guys have won. |
| nalf38 Sep 04, 2006 11:08 PM EDT |
Bob, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. The radical new Constitution you speak of specifically protects intellectual property in the form of a patent system. Let me answer the question of 'does it do what it's supposed to do' with another question: is it better than what came before it? Consider that one rhetorical. The answer is unequivocally yes. To see what a world would be like without copyright, one only need look at what preceded it, and if you have some crazy argument about how it was all better back in the good ol' days of common law copyright, and I'm absolutely dying to hear it. Yes, my 'scale' isn't yours isn't his isn't theirs, etc. That's why we have a representative democracy. I happen to think that .08 is a little restrictive, or that tearing the little tags off my pillows shouldn't be illegal, but we can't please absolutely everyone when we live in a nation of laws. The question of copyright isn't what makes the most sense, it's what makes the most sense to the most amount of people, and inevitably some people are going to be left unhappy. Are the benefits, weighed against the abuses, still greater? The benefits have to be assessed by looking at how the system worked before the dawn of copyright and patent, and we're clearly better off. Is some tweaking called for? Certainly. |
| jimf Sep 04, 2006 11:34 PM EDT |
> Is some tweaking called for? I think that the laws have indeed been tweaked, not always in ways that are fair or equitable, but tweeked none the less. The problem is that changes in the way media of all types have been marketed and distributed has changed beyond anything previous in history. We need to consider that no matter how much we tweak, it may be impossible to come up with a fair solution under the current system of patents and copyrights without a complete revamp of the existing system. I don't see that happening, so, we'll probably just stumble along as best we can. Hopefully, things like Creative Commons, and, GPL will provide us with some small relief. |
| dinotrac Sep 05, 2006 3:35 AM EDT |
jimf - I have no problem with ditching the current system -- but only if something better comes along. So far, nobody has done anything that protects rights and preserves incentives for artists while encouraging a flow of works to the public. I had hoped that the internet would be the enabling technology that got artists out from under the thumb of the money men, but it looks like I was wrong. So far, it seems to do the opposite. In a lawless, freewheeling culture that doesn't respect anybody's rights or welfare, you are forced to huddle under the protection of those who have big guns. That tends to carry a heavy price. |
| jimf Sep 05, 2006 8:40 AM EDT |
A lot of people don't want to hear or acknowledge, but, the patronage system for artists has never gone away, only changed in form. And, the virtual distribution of media has only intensified the situation. The pimps, with their money and power, still control their artist whores, and, pump them for every cent they can get from the client johns. There's more than enough blame for everyone here, but, no solution that I can see. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 05, 2006 12:25 PM EDT |
Dino, "The claim that my comment is irrelevant..." I made no such claim. Go back and read it again. It is *my* economic condition that is irrelevant to the discussion. Your premise is whether someone has wealth or not will change their beliefs concerning these economic and political phenomena. This is the politics of envy. This attitude and obfuscation of economic reality is how the "lower classes" have always been controlled by the "elites". "[no answer yet that] protects rights and preserves incentives for artists while encouraging a flow of works to the public." There is a relative, subjective judgement again. What "works"? Who chooses? Why is your choice of what flows worthy of a monopoly grant from Government, but my choice not? What is "art"? This is why, again, the absurdities and abuses that are being seen now, like "poop in a can" being _tax-funded_ as "art", have always existed but easily overlooked. The answer is to repeal all the laws concerning artificial grants of monopoly, as well as tax funding. The only answer that protects everyones rights equally is private property. "In a lawless, freewheeling culture that doesn't respect anybody's rights or welfare, you are forced to huddle under the protection of those who have big guns." Only if you fear change, and want those big guns to protect your past profits and business model. You're absolutely right that with a free market in Intellectual Property, some artists won't make the money they would have made otherwise. But it is just as certain that some artists will make more, by being more widely known and gaining an audience that would otherwise have been denied to them. Do you remember what "NAPster" stood for? "New Artists Program". I happen to think that musicians making the bulk of their money from performance is a Good Thing. I like the shared experience of a performance. And if tickets for one artist are outside of my economic means, so be it. Then they won't get my money. As fun as Jethro Tull was a SPAC, I enjoyed the guitar player in a basement wine-bar more, and gladly paid the door fee and bought his CD for both money and a hand-shake. As JimF points out, patronage never went away. People just adapt to changes in the legal environment the same way they put on coats in winter or case the corner for cop cars before picking up a hooker. And why is the art performed by a hooker any less worthy of legal protection than the art performed on a canvas or violin? A free-market answers that problem too, by making that judgement a personal one rather than a decision of government. Last rant: The only reason this argument exists is because government has insinuated itself into every aspect of life. EVERYTHING is a political matter, to be argued and fought over, because one side wins and the other side loses. We have to fight, no matter how trivial the issue, because otherwise we lose. ONLY in a free-market are all participants in every transaction winners, because every transaction is voluntary and consensual. |
| nalf38 Sep 05, 2006 1:48 PM EDT |
Oy-veh, Bob. That's a little extreme. Yes, the patronage system still exists. I have plenty of friends who have one. I can't but help but stress again that the system that came before the one we currently have was much worse. You're overlooking an extremely important point that in every big entertainment industry (music/movies/literature), there are multitudes of people who don't *perform* what they write/compose. They want and deserve to be compensated for their intellectual property if that's what they wish. You think Vivaldi toured the countryside of Italy playing his greatest hits? Would Beethoven have to die a penniless pauper when he lost his hearing because he could no longer perform in public? The public didn't want Beethoven the man, they wanted his music, and he wouldn't have earned a dime under the scheme that you're advocating. Under what you're proposing, there would be no Puccinis, Verdis, Strauss, Brittens, Schoenbergs, Stravinskys, or even any Cole Porters or George Gershwins or Irving Berlins. They would organize a performance of their music just once, and then their opportunity to make money from their toil would be completely GONE. Rogers and Hammerstein wouldn't have gotten a cent for any of the movie adaptations of their musicals because no one would have been required to pay them royalties. Disney's Fantasia uses Stravinsky's Rite of Spring in its entirety (remember the dinosaurs?). Do you think they paid him? No, because they didn't have to, because when he wrote it he was still a Russian citizen and couldn't apply for copyright in Western countries. And that kind of sounds like what you're advocating. It's not free-market, Bob, it's more like communism. The absence of copyright doesn't enhance the free market, it just makes it easier to get something for nothing. Dinotrac is right---the flow of works is protected under our current system. "Works" is what you make it, it's not some wierd government fiat like you're making it out to be. Anyone can write, publish, and copyright it. ANYONE. That's pretty fair, in my eyes. And if you don't like it, don't buy it. Free-market is voting with your dollar, and you still have every right to do so under the current system. What you don't have a right to do is steal other people's dollars and call it 'voting with your dollar.' No one's twisting your arm to buy an iPod or use Windows/OSX. The choice exists to opt out of the system if you dislike like it so much. No one's making me see MI-3 and thank god because forcing Tom Cruise on the general public might be just the thing to spark a copyright/patent revolution. I can go see Who Killed The Electric Car instead. Yes, there are instances (like in the aforementioned movie) when large corporations go out of their way eliminate choice, and it's wrong and needs changing, but advocating getting rid of the system altogether is naive. Jimf is right the system has been tweaked to nearly everyone's disadvantage. But the glory of our system is that we can tweak it back. There are new paradigms with the delivery of media, so I concede that comparing a theoretical post-copyright world to a pre-copyright world has limitations. But on the other hand, discarding the idea of IP altogether and saying 'it will all be different now' because of these new paradigms is just a giant invite for the past to repeat itself. One side doesn't win and another lose. I strongly disagree with that. The two can co-exist. This is not a zero sum issue. |
| jimf Sep 05, 2006 2:19 PM EDT |
> And why is the art performed by a hooker any less worthy of legal protection than the art performed on a canvas or violin? Certainly it's not. The analogy was only given to demonstrate the condition and heavy price we all currently (and historically) pay, whether we realize it or not. > A free-market answers that problem too, by making that judgment a personal one rather than a decision of government. That's a neat 'assumption' Bob. It's questionable that we've ever really had a true 'free-market economy' at any time in history. Anything that purported to be one certainly didn't provide the answer, so I have trouble believing that it would provide one now. Show me any existing country that works like this and I'll join you on the picket lines, until then, its just anarchistic drivel... |
| jimf Sep 05, 2006 2:36 PM EDT |
> I can't but help but stress again that the system that came before the one we currently have was much worse. That's an interesting value judgment. I think that the existing system which ends up paying the top 1% of artists an obscene amount of cash, and, the rest of the artists (many of whom are far more talented), pennies or nothing, is no better or worse than any system in the past. Of course the majority of the profits go to the Patron, so, nothing has changed in that respect except the scale of the operation. |
| nalf38 Sep 05, 2006 2:58 PM EDT |
Yeah, I guess that is a value judgment. But I think that the 1% that you speak of is also the most visible 1%, and they overshadow the little people who aren't, in my opinion, as bad off as you make them out to be. I know plenty of opera singers that most people have never heard of who make a very respectable $50-80k per year, and their pay is commensurate to their work, and they're happy. The same for musical theater performers, dancers, and pit musicians. And you can argue that they're performing music which, in most cases, the copyright no longer exists, the recordings that they make, thankfully, do. If anything, the new paradigm that the internet has created isn't going to overthrow the copyright system---it's going to level the playing field. Pretty much anyone can get into the game and publicize their work. Anyone can sell their book on Amazon.com and get their name out their on their own website. They might not make as much as Britney Spears (a pretty good example of an undeserved fame, IMHO), but the likelihood of them starving can be narrowed. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 05, 2006 6:24 PM EDT |
"Anything that purported to be one certainly didn't provide the answer, so I have trouble believing that it would provide one now." But I'm not promising Utopia. Utopia is a _planned_ environment, a place of perfect knowledge by perfect philosopher kings. It cannot exist. The free market and defense of private property _does_ provide an answer, and a working environment for both producers and consumers. For every possible abuse by "free-riders", there is the fact that in an unrestricted market it is possible to adjust for free-riders. It is just as impossible to say what would be lost as it is to say what will be gained. Level playing field? As if that exists now? All the regulation in the world does not produce a level playing field, all it does is enshrine some business models at the expense of everyone else. It's easy to argue against change, but let me try one more thing as an intellectual exercise. Copyright and patent require legislation to exist. Just like the post office. So why try to justify not having it? Seems like trying to prove a negative. Not having it is the default. Since it requires specific action in order to enact it, why not justify the enacting of copyright/patent instead? Copyright and patent specifically infringe upon the basic human action of sharing and following by example. The same things we are taught in kindergarten are important to getting along with others. It's easy to say things wouldn't be the same, that's obvious. What I do not appreciate is the knee-jerk attempts to say that because it would be different it would therefore be worse. Not having copyright and patent would be a far more "level playing field" than exists now. Britney Spears? My wife wanted "light driving music" for her commute, so she said "get a Britney Spears CD". I did, and she was tired of it the second day. I'm just glad I wasn't in Japan, where the copyright laws make America look like anarchy, and the disk would have been twice the price. Just to put everyone at ease, I'm not demanding a repeal of all copyright/patent. I would like to see the abuse returned to the "limited time" as specified in the Constitution. Once that happens, and people again accustom themselves to it, then we can argue for complete repeal. :^) |
| dinotrac Sep 06, 2006 1:58 AM EDT |
Bob, Bob, Bob, I think you're losing it here. A deep breath may be in order: >I made no such claim. Go back and read it again. It is *my* economic condition that is irrelevant to the discussion. OK, Bob. If you say so, fine. Never mind that I was commenting about your economic condition and how it might influence your position. I stand corrected, lambasted even. But...allow me to introduce you to a strange new concept. It's called "bias". Believe it or not, the things some people say (nobody that I know, of course) are affected by their personal interests. Go figure. > This is the politics of envy. This attitude and obfuscation of economic reality is how the "lower classes" have always been controlled by the "elites". Of course, Bob. We poor folk are biased by our envy whereas wealthier folks like you have no bias. If we were smart, we'd let you do all of our thinking for us, as we seem utterly unequipped for the task. >There is a relative, subjective judgement again. OK. Have you seen something that works better? I haven't heard you (or anyone else) put it forward. >The answer is to repeal all the laws concerning artificial grants of monopoly, as well as tax funding. The only answer that protects everyones rights equally is private property. What a strange and convoluted pairing of statements that seems to my poor little envy-addled mind. Private property is an artificial grant of monopoly in and of itself. Land and money are the two clearest examples. Land existed long before anybody owned it. It became property only when people recognized an artificial monopoly in its use that could be maintained by use of force. Today, the law protects your right to use and alienate the land. It lets you keep trespassers off the land. It lets you sell mineral rights and easements (implying easements is some cases), it recognizes grazing rights, water rights, and all kinds of things that look a heck of a lot more like those infernal copyrights than some innate right to maintain possession of your key chain. Money is an opposite example. If someone steals $10,000 from you, he has committed a crime for which he can go to jail. If I do $10,000 damage to you or your things, you have a right to be compensated. Money is funny, though. It's fungible. Any old $10,000 will do. Legally speaking, you have no right to demand that I give you bills with specific serial numbers, or that I use one bank over another. What makes it $10,000 has nothing to do with paper or ink or bank tellers or any of that good old tangible stuff. In the US, it's $10,000 because of a promise that the $10,000 can be exchanged for, well, $10,000 worth of stuff or services. Most money doesn't even exist in a physical form, but is little more than a series of chits created by the actions of banks. Gosh -- makes that private property right seem a little bit like those intellectual property rights, if you ask me. Except that, while you believe in private property -- a strange and nebulous thing that (sometimes) swirls around physical things and possible physical things (remember those mineral rights?), you don't believe in it for authors and composers. Those politics of envy must really be getting to me, because I could swear that you're all for private property when it benefits you but against it when you find it inconvenient. >You're absolutely right that with a free market in Intellectual Property, Uh, excuse me...I believe that you're the one arguing against a free market in Intellectual Property. A market requires having something to sell. I believe that authors and composers and the like can create something valuable with their efforts. You don't. I envy your ability to be so dismissive. |
| jdixon Sep 06, 2006 4:57 AM EDT |
Dino: Picking a nit: > Land existed long before anybody owned it. It became property only when people recognized an artificial monopoly in its use that could be maintained by use of force. I would argue that it was always property in that sense, as the use of force to maintain an advantage is a natural act that is not even limited to human beings. Even before we came along, the biggest T. Rex was chasing the others away from its prime hunting ground. |
| dinotrac Sep 06, 2006 5:18 AM EDT |
jdixon - Although your comment is reasonable and in point, I think it skates around some of what makes property property. We tend to focus on property as something we can possess, but it's also something we can sell or pass on to our children, or allow others passage over, etc. For example, the T. Rex may well have been territorial, but that territorial control was limited to its personal ability to keep others from foraging around in its hunting ground. If T. Rex food got a little scarce, it's control over the land ended when it moved on to new hunting grounds -- possibly displacing some other T. Rex. If that territory were property in the sense that we understand it, the T. Rex could have sold the territory to smaller carnivores or, even, heaven forfend, herbivores. Alternative T. Rex could have rented out the property for light use and pass it on to the kids, who could take advantage of the replenished food stock. If somebody intruded on the Territory that rightfully belonged to our T, he or she could enlist the aid of other Ts, whether they act as a government or simply a mutual association of Ts looking out for each other's interests. You get the drift. |
| jdixon Sep 06, 2006 5:45 AM EDT |
Dino: I will agree that property as we define it is not a natural phenomenon. I merely thought it wise to point out that it was an evolution from a natural phenomenon. Note that I've also argued in the past that Kelo demonstrates that "that territorial control was limited to its personal ability" still applies to modern property. I consider this unfortunate, but recognize that it's true. The bigger still take from the smaller, it's just that now political connections determine effective size. :( |
| dinotrac Sep 06, 2006 6:27 AM EDT |
jdixon - > it was an evolution from a natural phenomenon. Agreed. I would argue that IP, bastardized as it is, also evolves from a natural phenomenon. We can see that even in the free software world in the right of attribution...It's generally considered a Bad Thing to claim credit for somebody else's code. The specific scope and nature of rights has varied over time, but recognition goes a long way back. |
| jdixon Sep 06, 2006 9:27 AM EDT |
> I would argue that IP, bastardized as it is, also evolves from a natural phenomenon. I agree. I think everyone who thinks about it will agree that giving credit and/or compensation to a creator is both a good thing and the right thing to do. I would argue that this fundamental agreement is the natural source of all IP. The question I'm sure Bob would ask is if this should be codified by law at all, much less to the extent it has been? I don't have a good answer to that. |
| dinotrac Sep 06, 2006 9:38 AM EDT |
jdixon - > if this should be codified by law I think codification initially was done as a way to clarify, simplify, and limit copyright. Common law copyright, for example, had no expiration date. Codification probably makes claims more efficient. The real question today is whether there is a reasonable way to protect whatever legitimate rights authors may possess in their works. Technology has removed cost and access as barriers, rendering the old approaches both more expensive and less effective. What can we do in today's world that will protect everybody's rights -- and that includes rights under the Home Recording Act, fair use, etc. |
| nalf38 Sep 06, 2006 3:01 PM EDT |
I just read this on Yahoo!-- it's about the Supreme Court deciding to hear some cases relating to patents. I think we can all agree that this is a huge abuse of the system: "A Berkeley physics teacher, Robert Jacobsen, loves model railroads and built the Java Model Railroad Interface as open source code for fellow hobbyists. In March, he received an invoice for $203,000 from KAM Industries saying it had a patent on digital methods of controlling a model railroad command station, and it was seeking payment for all the times Jacobsen's code had been downloaded. Jacobsen is fighting the invoice in court and asking that the KAM patent be voided." And here's one we're all probably more familiar with: "FireStar Software sued Red Hat after its acquisition of JBoss, charging in a Texas court that JBoss' open source object/relational mapping software, called Hibernate, violates its object/relational mapping patent. FireStar asserts that it patented the entire concept of object/relational mapping, not merely a specific method of doing so." Bob-- it's stuff like this that makes me sympathize somewhat with your views. |
| dinotrac Sep 06, 2006 3:34 PM EDT |
nalf - It's a complete and utter mess, but a call to simply toss the system is akin to eliminating all automobile use because some people drive drunk and/or recklessly. One must remember that the system was devised to serve a purpose and ask how that purpose can best be served. One thing is for sure: the current system with regard to software is a complete mess -- primarily due to a complete shift on the patentability of software. Fifty years of computer innovation simply don't appear on the patent rolls. Now, everything old is new again, at least so far as applying for patents and the nimrod patent examiners are concerned. |
| nalf38 Sep 07, 2006 9:23 AM EDT |
You won't get any argument from me. |
| jdixon Sep 07, 2006 10:02 AM EDT |
> The real question today is whether there is a reasonable way to protect whatever legitimate rights authors may possess in their works. Technology has removed cost and access as barriers, rendering the old approaches both more expensive and less effective. I think Bob would argue that leaving the matter to government inevitably leads to the type of situation we have today, and that a true free market, while it might not result in an ideal solution, would give far better results than what we have. That remains unproven, but given the comparable example of the disaster government controlled education is becoming, history does seem to indicate he may be correct. |
| tuxchick2 Sep 07, 2006 10:44 AM EDT |
Making a distinction between "free market" and "government" is looking in the wrong direction. Any institution, whether government or private, ages towards tyranny. The bigger a company gets, the more control and power it wants. So the real battle is protecting individuals from the inevitable abuses that occur as both goverments and businesses grow and gain power. |
| jimf Sep 07, 2006 10:59 AM EDT |
> So the real battle is protecting individuals from the inevitable abuses that occur as both goverments and businesses grow and gain power. And, what happens when that has gotten totally out of hand? |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 07, 2006 11:54 AM EDT |
Dino, "Have you seen something that works better? I haven't heard you (or anyone else) put it forward." But...but...the very next paragraph is a quote of what I put forward: ">The answer is to repeal all the laws concerning artificial grants of monopoly, as well as tax funding. The only answer that protects everyones rights equally is private property." You may disagree with this statement, but to assert that no one has put forward an answer is incorrect. "Except that, while you believe in private property ..., you don't believe in it for authors and composers." Indeed I do. As I have said multiple times, I consider fraud to be prosecutable. To deliberately pass someone else's work off as your own is something I consider theft. "I could swear that you're all for private property when it benefits you but against it when you find it inconvenient." Cute. I have stated over and over that what is in debate is whether or not "Intellectual Property" is property _at all_. If it is not, then there is no contradiction. There is no debate that the present legal environment enforces "Intellectual Property" above and beyond mere physical property, since it can make a disk of plastic or a piece of paper illegal for me to sell even if I "own" the the paper or disk. "We poor folk are biased by our envy whereas wealthier folks like you have no bias." That is not what I was talking about. You bought up "bias". By telling the "poor" that only through the efforts of BigMommy are their meager rights defended, the elites have always been able to keep the masses in line. "Remind them why They Need US!" comes to mind. TC2, "Making a distinction between "free market" and "government" is looking in the wrong direction. Any institution, whether government or private, ages towards tyranny. The bigger a company gets, the more control and power it wants." But it can only gain the power of coercion by partnering with government, since government reserves to itself the legal initiation of force. That is why corporate/government alliances are so dangerous, and why the U.N. working with so-called NGOs is frightening. "So the real battle is protecting individuals from the inevitable abuses that occur as both goverments and businesses grow and gain power." When a company becomes abusive, you can choose not to buy their products or services. Not paying taxes, in comparison, can have lethal consequences. Do you remember I.T.T.? They, IBM and Exxon were going to rule the world. They're gone. In a scant 30 years, they have gone from globe-spanning megacorp to only publishing non-English phone books. I suggest that it is the limited liability granted to "corporations", and the government partnerships, that allow for mega-corps to exist in the first place. As I mentioned to Dino, government thrives by creating an environment of fear, where people willingly give up their liberty for a false sense of security. That fear can be fear of anything, including and especially such things as a fear of over-reaching by government-created corporations. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 07, 2006 11:58 AM EDT |
Quick addendum, on the "private property" front. Today's daily article on Mises.org might be of interest. http://www.mises.org/story/2291 " How We Come to Own Ourselves Self-ownership is the first principle of the idea of liberty, writes Stephan Kinsella. If we don't own ourselves, every form of slavery and despotism becomes ethically permissable. But how do we come to own ourselves? Through homesteading? No, in the case of our bodies, we must depend on the prior existence of an objective and natural connection to and relationship between the occupant and the body." |
| jimf Sep 07, 2006 12:18 PM EDT |
> "Have you seen something that works better? I haven't heard you (or anyone else) put it forward." You want specifics, well... :) Start by forbidding Lobbies or contributions by Corporations. Bet that would change the landscape. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 07, 2006 12:59 PM EDT |
How about repealing the limited liability incorporation laws? That too would "change the landscape". |
| dinotrac Sep 07, 2006 1:14 PM EDT |
Ah, Bob... >Indeed I do. As I have said multiple times, I consider fraud to be prosecutable. To deliberately pass someone else's work off as your own is something I consider theft. Indeed you don't. Attribution is a tiny scrap. The value in what an author or composer does lies in the composition. You would remove anything resembling property rights from the composition. The author who wishes to be paid must do it for somebody willing to pay the commission -- a commission that won't be funded by millions of sales. Authors lose, the public loses. A property right in the paper or disk upon which it was composed is utterly meaningless. >By telling the "poor" that only through the efforts of BigMommy are their meager rights defended My complaint is that we have technology at hand to free creators from the shackles of the money men, only to have them driven back by those who don't give a damn about their rights, moral or otherwise. > As I mentioned to Dino, government thrives by creating an environment of fear, Which has nothing whatsoever with helping creators to get paid. And -- your solution is claim private property while making sure that nothing like property rights exist. A complete contradiction. |
| jimf Sep 07, 2006 1:16 PM EDT |
Bob, There are a lot of things that would impact, but the main problems stem from Corporate meddling in government and in Fed's involvement. If we get rid of the Corporate meddling, fire the Fed, and have the Government print their own money, we're on our way to something viable. But then, that will never happen. Too much vested intrest, and power given is seldom, if ever, given back. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 07, 2006 4:36 PM EDT |
Dino, "Indeed you don't. Attribution is a tiny scrap." Seems to work for the BSD folks. "You would remove anything resembling property rights from the composition." Not at all. That composition is yours to do with as you will. What you cannot do is claim ownership over everyone who hears it, to decide what they may or may not do with their property. I've also said several times that of course someone is going to try to abuse the situation. People already do. What you have not done is create a logical (as opposed to emotional) support for the existence of restrictive IP regulation, nor provided any substantive argument that the abuse without that IP regulation will be greater than the abuse of IP is now, considering both the enforcement abuses of the regulations _and_ the abuses created by those who elude those regulations. Ayn Rand had an interesting insight into this. The tighter the regulation, the more numerous the laws, the more people simply ignore the law (like speeding). The abundance of legislation leads directly to a lack of respect for any law. It creates a culture of law-less-ness. Which brings me back to you and me. When I like an artist, I buy their production. So do you. People spend more on Q-Tips not because no one else can legally put a bit of cotton on the end of a paper stick, but because they prefer to pay the extra money to get a "real" Q-Tip. "Officially authorized" stuff, show tickets, contract production, even patronage, may not pay as well as writing Windows XP...ahem, I mean, writing for Warner Brothers, but it means that there is just as much opportunity for the gifted Garage Band as there is for a Major Star. Even an upstart like Linux can compete head to head with the Major Labels. Oh, and on another tack, when Mises.org puts a title on their site for free, sales of the hardbound versions _increase_. JimF, "power given is seldom, if ever, given back." There's a great book about this, "Crisis And Leviathan", by Robert Higgs. http://www.mises.org/store/Crisis-and-Leviathan-P138C1.aspx |
| dinotrac Sep 07, 2006 6:31 PM EDT |
>When I like an artist, I buy their production. So do you. People spend more on Q-Tips not because no one else can legally put a bit of cotton on the end of a paper stick, but because they prefer to pay the extra money to get a "real" Q-Tip. Which does absolutely nothing for authors and composers because, anybody can print the book or record the music, what have you. For that matter, anybody can print the book and attribute it to the author without paying them a dime -- at least in the world you would like to see. You seem to believe that authors and composers contribute nothing of value and should, in return, expect nothing. How do you propose they be compensated for their work? |
| nalf38 Sep 08, 2006 8:19 AM EDT |
"What you cannot do is claim ownership over everyone who hears it, to decide what they may or may not do with their property." Bob-- that's nebulous. If you're referring to DRM and the ability to transfer music/movies/etc. from one media to another, then I agree. But you seem to take for granted the composition itself. Attribution is important, but whether or not that's enough is a choice that is up to the author or composer, not to you. That's my freedom in the free market; if you don't like the license restrictions of my product, then go buy (or take freely, in what you seem to be advocating) someone else's. "Ayn Rand had an interesting insight into this." Again, you're basically admitting that the problem is a matter of scale. And you've misconstrued Rand's views on the matter. Under your logic, the formula for Rearden Steel would immediately have become public property, and Rand would never have condoned such an obvious theft; half of Atlas Shrugged is about how *against* that kind of intellectual theft she is. "When I like an artist, I buy their production." No, you don't. You're buying their concept, their ideas, of which their 'production' is just a physical representation. That intellectual *private* property may have taken years of work and thought and rethinking (Rearden Steel, anyone?), and it's the right of the creator to decide in what manner they wish to be compensated for it. Under your system, someone can copy the physical representation down to the atom and sell it at a profit and all they have to do is say, "Thanks, Mr. Creator." Do you really think that if the product looks and functions *exactly* like the original, that anyone gives a damn about "authorized?" (edit: who the hell buys Johnson & Johnson brand Q-tips anymore?) I think it's worth arguing that what you're advocating is just as artificial a system as the one we currently use. Upstarts like Linux compete head to head with Major Labels already, no major IP revolution needed. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 08, 2006 4:17 PM EDT |
"Under your logic, the formula for Rearden Steel would immediately have become public property..." How remarkably wrong. I am obviously not communicating well enough. Please go back and see where I mention both the 11 herbs and spices, and the recipe for Coca-Cola, as examples where both copyright and patent are irrelevant, it's considered a trade secret. It is PATENT and COPYRIGHT, at least copyright before everything was copyrighted by default, where the formula/manuscript had to be published publicly in the patent office / library of congress. The formula for Coca-Cola has featured in one of the more enjoyable speculative fiction stories as having been taken by government at gun point, from the last refugees who had tried to leave the country with it, because it had become illegal to have trade secrets. Something about it being "unfair competition". I said, "When I like an artist, I buy their production." Then, "No, you don't." Yes, I do. I can get their ideas from the library, their music from the radio. If I like their _production_, I buy those things _produced_ by them. Their books, their records. I may still hear their songs or see their writings, but if I don't like it I don't buy it. "Do you really think that if the product looks and functions *exactly* like the original, that anyone gives a damn about "authorized?"" Yes. So do you, so does Dino. So do lots of people. And if that isn't good enough, then those who are in it for the money will stop, and those who do it for the love of art will continue. It is my opinion that the resulting works will make up for quality the loss of the great quantity of crap produced under a restrictive legal IP environment. "I think it's worth arguing that what you're advocating is just as artificial a system as the one we currently use." Ignoring the fact that copyright and patent are LEGAL constructs. "What I'm advocating" is merely a repeal of the laws. What results will not be artificial at all, but the result of the society we all create. I'm sorry that my communication has been so completely inadequate to the task, since I have said everything in this post previously. That means I am not being understood, so I will abstain from replying uselessly. If you have any question, or wish to correct me further, please look at what I've already written and see if your objection has already been answered. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 08, 2006 4:19 PM EDT |
I'm sorry, I do wish to answer one more concern: "Upstarts like Linux compete head to head with Major Labels already, no major IP revolution needed." Which also demonstrates the irrelevance of restrictive IP laws to actual innovation. |
| dinotrac Sep 08, 2006 6:08 PM EDT |
Bob - For the Record, the formula for Coke is not protected by Patent, copyright or trademark. It is a trade secret. |
| jimf Sep 08, 2006 6:27 PM EDT |
> It is a trade secret. Well, we know for sure they had to take the coke out of it... |
| dinotrac Sep 08, 2006 6:44 PM EDT |
jimf >Well, we know for sure they had to take the coke out of it... Yeah, but sugar water cola just didn't have any right to it. |
| jimf Sep 08, 2006 6:49 PM EDT |
So we are left guessing the 'secret' ingredient.... |
| tuxchick2 Sep 08, 2006 7:16 PM EDT |
Here is a picture of the secret ingredient: http://www.wga.hu/art/c/cuyp/aelbert/2/cows.jpg |
| jimf Sep 08, 2006 8:44 PM EDT |
I figured... Properly sterilized of course. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 09, 2006 4:41 AM EDT |
Dino, please take that little detail that you think I didn't know, and look back at what I was saying. See how that fits with what I said about patent and copyright both _revealing_ secrets, and that neither Coca-Cola, nor KFC, nor Krispy Kream doughnuts to add another, use copyright or patent to protect their recipe.s Can you understand why I am so frustrated? All these posts and you _still_ thought I didn't know what a trade secret was? I would love to let you have the last word, if only you could say something that wasn't 1)about my position and 2)wrong. |
| dinotrac Sep 09, 2006 8:03 AM EDT |
Bob - I misread. Sorry. I don't, however, understand your rant. The purpose of patents is to bring things into the public domain. That seems like a good thing to me. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 09, 2006 8:28 AM EDT |
That may be the stated purpose, but that is not what has in fact been the result. So I'm back to my original premise: Are the abuses under restrictive IP law (both enforcement and evasion) more destructive than beneficial, compared to _not_ having restrictive IP law? This is the question from a utilitarian standpoint. From the standpoint of principle, by violating the principle of self-ownership, granting legal monopoly status through copyright and patent, it is hypocrisy to then prosecute "monopoly" as if it were a bad thing when it seems to occur privately. Either monopoly is bad, or it is not. All I have said of my own position is that I wish to maximize individual liberty. Liberty to create, liberty to enjoy. Artificial restrictions, be it what I am allowed to do with a book, a plant extract, a weed, or yeast, is still an artificial restriction. You wrote of "license agreements". Not once anywhere have I objected to license agreements in of themselves. A license agreement is _not_ an artificial restriction, it is something both parties have agreed to before hand. It is a _contract_. Law is not a contract. It is imposed by force. |
| dinotrac Sep 09, 2006 9:16 AM EDT |
>Either monopoly is bad, or it is not. It's not quite that simple. We don't prosecute monopolies for being monopolies. American law does not recognize the simple acquisition of a monopoly as a bad thing. We also have a long history of regulated monopolies where, at some point, it seemed to make sense -- mostly in the areas of electric and natural gas generation/distribution. What breaks the law is abusive use of monopoly power -- leveraging that power in a way to foreclose competition. Patent and Copyright laws (not so much on copyright any more -- and a giant GRRRR!!!! on that) represent a trade-off for the public interest: a temporary monopoly in exchange for giving up trade secrets to the public domain. When things are working the way they should, patents encourage investments in R&D -- more inventions -- while funneling knowledge into the public domain. The clearest case of this activity is in the pharmaceutical industry and the constant stream of drugs going off patent and becoming available as generics. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 09, 2006 9:27 AM EDT |
"We don't prosecute monopolies for being monopolies." Ah, you might want to read up on the subject. |
| dinotrac Sep 09, 2006 12:38 PM EDT |
Bob - You might want to read up on the subject. I did enough of that in law school. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 09, 2006 1:30 PM EDT |
Then why does the SEC reject mergers? Doing so cannot be in response to "monopolistic acts", because the "monopoly" doesn't even exist yet to have acted at all. Therefore, the SEC _must_ be basing their decision solely on the combined historical sales profiles, which directly contradicts your statement that "monopolies" are not legally punished merely for being "monopolies". |
| dinotrac Sep 09, 2006 4:51 PM EDT |
Bob, Bob, Bob... I said that we don't prosecute monopolies for being monopolies. That has nothing to do with examining mergers that might create monopolies. BTW - I could be wrong, but I think you've got your agencies mixed up. The SEC does approve the mergers of publicly traded companies, but I don't think antitrust is their concern. More a matter of ensuring no market hanky-panky. The FTC, however, is very concerned with the anti-competitive effect of mergers. Note, however, that the FTC mandate is not to prevent monopolies, but to preserve a competitive market. The two are related but not the same. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 09, 2006 5:02 PM EDT |
Dino, I think you're reaching. One specific reasoning I've read of announcements of denied mergers is the supposed creation of a monopoly position. Therefore, "monopolies" are being legally punished. Even monopolies that have never existed. SEC, FTC, ETC, I don't care. You said "We". "We" haven't done anything, actually, since I never agreed to any of this intrusion into other peoples business. |
| dinotrac Sep 09, 2006 6:00 PM EDT |
Bob - The facts are the facts. If you don't like them, there is nothing I can do about it. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 10, 2006 4:21 PM EDT |
Dino, I couldn't agree more. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!