Re: You're presupposing, as usual, that piracy is small.
Another "Fire! Ready! Aim!" from OOB. It doesn't matter one iota how many people "pirate", DRM doesn't have any effect on it whatsoever. DRM has not stopped nor slowed infringement. It doesn't make anybody support copyright. It certainly holds no value for the paying customers. Adding DRM to content is like adding excrement to cake. The "pirates" know how to remove the feces so they don't have to eat it, but the paying customers get stuck with eating it instead. I don't know about you, but I like my cake feces-free.
If your goal is to stop the sharing culture from spreading, DRM will not achieve that end. It actually accelerates it. In the end, fighting sharing is a hopeless battle that doesn't even have to be fought. If you actually shift your revenue streams away from content as a product to content as a service, you won't have to worry about "pirates" that "steal" your "IP".
What's inconsistent is the government's job description. Their job is to uphold the constitution, not provide safety and security for the people, unless it serves to uphold the constitution in its application.
The first and second amendments reserve the rights for the people to provide their own security by forming and training their own voluntary militia to guard the security of the people. The government's job is to make sure that those rights are protected.
The framers seem quite clever in this regard that they knew a government that owns it's own militia would inevitably turn that force against its own people, which is why standing armies are not allowed despite the fact that they exist. Security is the responsibility of the people and the government's job is to make sure that they do nothing that would violate our protected rights.
The bottom line is the government secures our liberty, the people take care of their own security. It's unfortunate that the two concepts have been muddied into being synonymous.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Ben Franklin
There is no amount of security that can facilitate a fair exchange for the value of liberty. I recall someone saying they'd rather die than live without liberty. I believe that man was Patrick Henry. Oh my how we've been brought down to whimpering cows compared to the people that fought for the liberty we give up so easily! My ancestors lived in colonial America during the American revolution, they may have even been rebels. I'd hate to insult the sacrifice of my ancestors by cowing myself to the tyranny they fought to overthrow.
I think Obama has been in the monkey house so long, that he's gotten used to the smell of shit his staff feeds him. (No, that wasn't a racial slur, monkey house is a term describing one's desensitization to something bad. If you work around shit all day, you don't notice it smells.)
Through professional coercion. If you don't bark on command, you won't get the very references and experience that you need, practically guaranteeing that your career comes to a dead stop right there. It's amazing what kind of contracts people will "freely" enter into when the other guy has them over a barrel.
Re: Mike's unpaid minions are unpaid. Mike is a hypocrite.
That's a load of horse honky. His "unpaid minions" are volunteers that know going in that they are donating their time. Mike offers no compensation and they ask for none. They aren't being mislead, coerced, or cheated. They participate of their own free will. Your argument is about as flat as Calista Flockhart's chest.
You are pathetic. You can't refute the arguments so, instead, you turn to personal attacks, ad hominems, and trying to kill the messenger to stop the message. Yeah, your content is compelling as eating raw tripe with live insects.
I promise you that whatever your endgame is, it will not succeed. You're wasting your time. You're not going to turn the readership against Mike. You're not going to miraculously herald some great coup against Mike and TechDirt that will forever discredit them. You have accomplished nothing but the ire and disgust of everyone around you. You are the equivalent of a feminist rally protesting in the middle of a funeral calling the deceased a "rape apologist". You have no morals, so self-respect, and no clue.
That's because the politicians and the special interests are the same people. Rich people get themselves into office so they can collaborate with their rich friends in office to form legislation that is sympathetic to their own financial aspirations and business friends. Basically, rich people get into office and vote for laws that make them more money.
No, that's purely inductive reasoning and it's not impossible. Just because nobody has succeeded does not prove that it can't be done. You can't have a voluntary society if your infrastructure still operates on a system that necessitates coercion. A coercive economy requires a coercive societal structure (i.e. government). You need an economy that will allow people the freedom to refuse to cooperate. You can't just throw out the government that ensures everyone participates and cling to an economy that requires everyone to participate. If everyone needs participation from everyone else to get things done, it's inevitable that you'll form a system that ensures nobody can live without contributing to the whole.
To have a truly voluntary society, infrastructure must be put in place so that each member can be self-sufficient. That means decentralizing the means to production so that each and every person can produce for themselves what they need without additional labor from outside sources. But it's more than that, you need to deal with issues of property. For that, there needs to be an abundance of all resources required to satisfy human needs. With an abundance of resources and productive means, cooperative contribution would be entirely voluntary. Some would just live their lives and some would voluntarily assemble to achieve collective goals.
If you can't overcome the limiting interdependence of our current society, any other system is doomed to fail.
Nope, wrong. There is no such thing as intellectual property. There is no language in the US legal code that defines ephemeral things as property. There are only temporary monopolies on the distribution and sale of art and inventions. So I suggest you try again and stop pretending that you know more than a site frequented by lawyers, economists, and tech experts that will tell you the same. There are regulars here that could cite actual legal code so fast, it would make your head spin. I'm just a lay man, but even I know you're full of it.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." - Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe
When a privileged minority controls all of the resources and the means to production we need to live, you are property. The only choice you have is which owner you work for. They own your labor because they have the power to keep you from accessing those resources if you refuse to participate in their system. The only other option for those that want to be free, is to live in the wild.
Slavery isn't strictly defined as violent control over another person. Deceit and misdirection can just as easily enslave a person. When you are forced by violent means to labor for another, you know you are enslaved. But when you are born into a system where you must labor for the means to live and are exploited by the owners through debt, fear, and ignorance, you are just as enslaved as if they slapped shackles on your wrists. The only difference is, that you don't see your cage. You don't see your master putting the boot down on you.
Capitalism is a form of slavery just as feudalism was slavery. The kings (owners of the land and means of production) have vassals (CEO's) that are stewards of the king's property and they use lords (managers) to coordinate the serfs (wager earners) who trade their labor to enrich everyone up the chain for the meager means to live. The serfs could not rise above their station and this lead people to seeing such a system as nothing more than slavery.
Today, capitalism operates on same principles, expect for one difference. The serfs can rise to higher economic status, but everything else stays the same. The king still owns the land and means to production and you still work for managers and CEO's that exploit your labor to make them and their bosses rich. People are falsely lead to believe they are free because of that little idea that they can rise from a serf to a king. However, this almost never happens and it certainly can't happen for everyone. If everyone was king, nobody would be. So they replaced socioeconomic destiny with a battle to be the next king. Keep the people distracted with fighting each other over who gets to be king and nobody notices that they are being used as chattel to keep the current kings in the lap of luxury.
I don't believe anyone owes me a living. I'm not advocating that others should give their labor up so that I don't have to, that would be contradictory to my goals. No, what I want is people to be self-reliant and have access to the means of production so that they can provide for themselves the goods they require to live. They should have the freedom to work because they choose to and not because of a mortgage, loans, and bills are compelling them to do so. We are a very technologically advanced society and we could devise a way for people to produce their own goods with very little time and labor put in (automation).
This is good because right now, a lot of human potential is wasted on daily toil to maintain the minimum of existence. When people are applying the majority of their labor to food and shelter, they can't invest it into the science, technology, art, philosophy, academia, and exploration. In other words, they can't participate in the advancement of humanity because they're too busy trying to stay fed and sheltered. This is the 21st century, we shouldn't still be struggling to feed and cloth ourselves. We should be free to pursue higher goals.
On the post: W3C Chief: To Prevent Parts Of The Web From Being Walled Off, We Need To Wall It Off Ourselves
Re: You're presupposing, as usual, that piracy is small.
If your goal is to stop the sharing culture from spreading, DRM will not achieve that end. It actually accelerates it. In the end, fighting sharing is a hopeless battle that doesn't even have to be fought. If you actually shift your revenue streams away from content as a product to content as a service, you won't have to worry about "pirates" that "steal" your "IP".
On the post: Candidate Obama Debating President Obama On Civil Liberties vs. Government Surveillance
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Candidate Obama Debating President Obama On Civil Liberties vs. Government Surveillance
Re:
The first and second amendments reserve the rights for the people to provide their own security by forming and training their own voluntary militia to guard the security of the people. The government's job is to make sure that those rights are protected.
The framers seem quite clever in this regard that they knew a government that owns it's own militia would inevitably turn that force against its own people, which is why standing armies are not allowed despite the fact that they exist. Security is the responsibility of the people and the government's job is to make sure that they do nothing that would violate our protected rights.
The bottom line is the government secures our liberty, the people take care of their own security. It's unfortunate that the two concepts have been muddied into being synonymous.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Ben Franklin
There is no amount of security that can facilitate a fair exchange for the value of liberty. I recall someone saying they'd rather die than live without liberty. I believe that man was Patrick Henry. Oh my how we've been brought down to whimpering cows compared to the people that fought for the liberty we give up so easily! My ancestors lived in colonial America during the American revolution, they may have even been rebels. I'd hate to insult the sacrifice of my ancestors by cowing myself to the tyranny they fought to overthrow.
On the post: Candidate Obama Debating President Obama On Civil Liberties vs. Government Surveillance
Re: President and Candidate not the same thing
On the post: Hollywood Studios Keep Saying Its Employees Must Get Paid, And Now May Be Forced To Pay Its Interns
Re: Re:
Through professional coercion. If you don't bark on command, you won't get the very references and experience that you need, practically guaranteeing that your career comes to a dead stop right there. It's amazing what kind of contracts people will "freely" enter into when the other guy has them over a barrel.
On the post: Hollywood Studios Keep Saying Its Employees Must Get Paid, And Now May Be Forced To Pay Its Interns
Re: Mike's unpaid minions are unpaid. Mike is a hypocrite.
You are pathetic. You can't refute the arguments so, instead, you turn to personal attacks, ad hominems, and trying to kill the messenger to stop the message. Yeah, your content is compelling as eating raw tripe with live insects.
On the post: Hollywood Studios Keep Saying Its Employees Must Get Paid, And Now May Be Forced To Pay Its Interns
Re: Re: "laws against unpaid internships are kind of silly"
On the post: Hollywood Studios Keep Saying Its Employees Must Get Paid, And Now May Be Forced To Pay Its Interns
Re: Re: Re: "laws against unpaid internships are kind of silly"
On the post: Hollywood Studios Keep Saying Its Employees Must Get Paid, And Now May Be Forced To Pay Its Interns
Re:
On the post: Hollywood Studios Keep Saying Its Employees Must Get Paid, And Now May Be Forced To Pay Its Interns
Re:
On the post: Lawsuit Filed To Prove Happy Birthday Is In The Public Domain; Demands Warner Pay Back Millions Of License Fees
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Lawsuit Filed To Prove Happy Birthday Is In The Public Domain; Demands Warner Pay Back Millions Of License Fees
Re: Re:
On the post: Lawsuit Filed To Prove Happy Birthday Is In The Public Domain; Demands Warner Pay Back Millions Of License Fees
Re:
On the post: Adrian Lamo On The Stand: 'Did Manning Ever Say He Wanted To Help The Enemy?' 'Not In Those Words, No.'
The enemy.
On the post: DHS Says Agent 'Hunches' Trump Citizens' Rights In Searching Your Computer At The Border
Re: Re: Re: Re: The IRS Makes This Possible
To have a truly voluntary society, infrastructure must be put in place so that each member can be self-sufficient. That means decentralizing the means to production so that each and every person can produce for themselves what they need without additional labor from outside sources. But it's more than that, you need to deal with issues of property. For that, there needs to be an abundance of all resources required to satisfy human needs. With an abundance of resources and productive means, cooperative contribution would be entirely voluntary. Some would just live their lives and some would voluntarily assemble to achieve collective goals.
If you can't overcome the limiting interdependence of our current society, any other system is doomed to fail.
On the post: Why Did Congress Abdicate Its Power To Make Copyright Policy?
If they've given up their power over copyright policy...
On the post: DHS Says Agent 'Hunches' Trump Citizens' Rights In Searching Your Computer At The Border
Re: Re: The IRS Makes This Possible
On the post: Comcast's Top Lobbyist Pens Editorial To Remind Americans That US Broadband Service Is Awesome
Re:
On the post: Student Wins Intel Science Fair; Threatened With Patent Infringement Claims For Patent Not Yet Granted
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Student Wins Intel Science Fair; Threatened With Patent Infringement Claims For Patent Not Yet Granted
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ownership culture.
When a privileged minority controls all of the resources and the means to production we need to live, you are property. The only choice you have is which owner you work for. They own your labor because they have the power to keep you from accessing those resources if you refuse to participate in their system. The only other option for those that want to be free, is to live in the wild.
Slavery isn't strictly defined as violent control over another person. Deceit and misdirection can just as easily enslave a person. When you are forced by violent means to labor for another, you know you are enslaved. But when you are born into a system where you must labor for the means to live and are exploited by the owners through debt, fear, and ignorance, you are just as enslaved as if they slapped shackles on your wrists. The only difference is, that you don't see your cage. You don't see your master putting the boot down on you.
Capitalism is a form of slavery just as feudalism was slavery. The kings (owners of the land and means of production) have vassals (CEO's) that are stewards of the king's property and they use lords (managers) to coordinate the serfs (wager earners) who trade their labor to enrich everyone up the chain for the meager means to live. The serfs could not rise above their station and this lead people to seeing such a system as nothing more than slavery.
Today, capitalism operates on same principles, expect for one difference. The serfs can rise to higher economic status, but everything else stays the same. The king still owns the land and means to production and you still work for managers and CEO's that exploit your labor to make them and their bosses rich. People are falsely lead to believe they are free because of that little idea that they can rise from a serf to a king. However, this almost never happens and it certainly can't happen for everyone. If everyone was king, nobody would be. So they replaced socioeconomic destiny with a battle to be the next king. Keep the people distracted with fighting each other over who gets to be king and nobody notices that they are being used as chattel to keep the current kings in the lap of luxury.
I don't believe anyone owes me a living. I'm not advocating that others should give their labor up so that I don't have to, that would be contradictory to my goals. No, what I want is people to be self-reliant and have access to the means of production so that they can provide for themselves the goods they require to live. They should have the freedom to work because they choose to and not because of a mortgage, loans, and bills are compelling them to do so. We are a very technologically advanced society and we could devise a way for people to produce their own goods with very little time and labor put in (automation).
This is good because right now, a lot of human potential is wasted on daily toil to maintain the minimum of existence. When people are applying the majority of their labor to food and shelter, they can't invest it into the science, technology, art, philosophy, academia, and exploration. In other words, they can't participate in the advancement of humanity because they're too busy trying to stay fed and sheltered. This is the 21st century, we shouldn't still be struggling to feed and cloth ourselves. We should be free to pursue higher goals.
Next >>