I reject the first assumption
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| gus3 Apr 03, 2009 6:06 PM EDT |
... that is, the validity of software patents, or the more general term "intellectual property." And this guy has a vested interest in the preservation of both. He admits it in the second paragraph: Quoting:The fact that I am a patent attorney undoubtedly makes many in the open source movement immediately think I simply don’t understand technology, and my writings that state computer software is not math have only caused mathematicians and computer scientists to believe I am a quack. Unlike most patent attorneys, I do get it and that is probably why my writings can be so offensive to the true believers. I am not only a patent attorney, but I am an electrical engineer who specializes in computer technologies, including software and business method technologies. I write software code and whether you agree with me or not, telling me I simply don’t understand is not intellectually compelling. I do get it, and the reality is that open source software is taking us in a direction that should scare everyone."I do get it"--no, he doesn't understand that a transistor is little more than a light switch with no moving parts, and how one uses that switch cannot be patented. "true believers"--name-calling, are we? "business method technologies"--I think the fish just got its bicycle. Arrogance, bigotry, and obfuscation all rolled into one! The fine people at Groklaw.net might find him to be a tasty meal. |
| gus3 Apr 03, 2009 6:15 PM EDT |
It looks like they've beat me to the punch: [url=http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20090402200704369&title=Quinn's race to zero&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=749727#c749847]http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20090402...[/url] This comment thread is interesting, indeed, from Groklaw.net's POV. |
| softwarejanitor Apr 03, 2009 6:22 PM EDT |
Your points are good gus... but I'd also take issue with his assertation that Sun being an "Open Source" company is why they have been failing. Sun has been hurting for a long time, and it isn't their software operations that are to blame as much as it has been a commoditization of hardware which made what used to be their bread and butter into a quickly shrinking market. I'd actually say if they didn't have OpenOffice, Java and MySQL, they'd already be largely irrelevant or maybe have disappeared entirely. I agree with one of the comments to the blog post that say that Sun would have been way further ahead of where they are now had they done a better job of being open with their open source projects. If they'd been a little more flexible with OpenOffice, if they'd open sourced Java sooner or if they'd not run off people like Monte from MySQL. Lots of other former workstation and server vendors who focused primarily on hardware have already either been bought out, gone belly up or are in danger of that soon. Look at SGI, for example... With no significant FOSS involvement they've pretty much died. In Chapter 11 and being sold for a mere $25 million. |
| tracyanne Apr 03, 2009 6:34 PM EDT |
the only thing he's worried about is the earnings he's currently getting from the shonky Business Method technologies and other phoney "Intellectual property" he's helping to lock up in questionable patents. |
| phsolide Apr 04, 2009 10:01 AM EDT |
The only reason Sun was an "open source" company was that they were in the hardware business: they weren't (or at least didn't consider themselves) a software company. The software was a way to get people to buy their hardware. Which, in the Techdirt (http://techdirt.com/) sense, makes Sun one of the pioneers of the "free as a business model" stuff. Sun gave away infinitely reproducible goods (RPC, OpenLook, Java, etc) to sell genuinely scarce goods (SPARC workstations, and later servers). "Intellectual Property" people ignore some very basic economics to get to where they want to be. Software is mathematics, no matter what this guy says. Ideas are not "property" in the traditional sense, again, no matter what this guy says. |
| hkwint Apr 07, 2009 4:05 PM EDT |
Quoting:Software is mathematics, no matter what this guy says. One cannot be happy with this equation as software can be placed - much like prose - under copyright and pure mathematics, most of the times, is not (if it can be is another question; I have to admit I don't know). I believe I may redistribute most proofs of Pythagoras theorem without violating copyright; while the same cannot be said about software or books. I'm not sure whether this is because the proofs are in the public domain, the copyright has expired or something else like 'fair use' (hint: The latter is not known outside the US; and from a historical perspective I believe most great mathematicians lived outside the US). Lack of (strong) copyright protection has lead us to our current mathematical knowledge however; I'm sure if Riemann e.a. enforced their copyrights over mathematics, the whole field wouldn't be where it is today. |
| jezuch Apr 08, 2009 1:58 AM EDT |
Quoting:The latter is not known outside the US "The latter" being fair use? I don't know about the rest of Europe, but in Poland there's a concept called "dozwolony u?ytek" ("allowed use"), which can be private or public. I always thought it's a "European" counterpart to the US fair use. Did I miss something? |
| Sander_Marechal Apr 08, 2009 4:41 AM EDT |
I think that's a Polish concept and not a European-wide concept. |
| hkwint Apr 08, 2009 5:19 AM EDT |
Here it is: http://teflpedia.com/index.php?title=Copyright_in_English_la... |
| montezuma Apr 08, 2009 7:53 AM EDT |
I like one of the founders of the USA, Benjamin Franklin's take on patents: "As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours, and this we should do freely and generously" This was in explanation for his refusal to accept a patent for the invention of the slow combustion stove. |
| dinotrac Apr 08, 2009 9:47 AM EDT |
Sander - Fair use certainly is known as a concept in the United Kingdom. That's where it actually originated. I'd be surprised if other countries don't have similar ideas, perhaps bundled differently. |
| Sander_Marechal Apr 08, 2009 10:04 AM EDT |
Many countries don't dino, athough often you see "fair dealing". That is a bit similar to fair use but the exemptions it provides vary wildly from country to country. Usually it's less than what US fair use provides. Also, I bet many countries don't even have laws governing this but just some jurisprudence from old cases. The only thing that seems to be universal is the fair use doctrine in the Berne convention, but that only gives you the right to quote a snippet. And only for educational use. |
| jezuch Apr 08, 2009 3:24 PM EDT |
Quoting:Fair use certainly is known as a concept in the United Kingdom. That's where it actually originated. Well, that's no wonder, because US law is based on British common law system :) But common law, like many things British, is not a part of "European" tradition (which is civil law). |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 08, 2009 4:43 PM EDT |
And a daily article on just this subject: http://mises.org/story/3406 Patents and Copyrights Should be Repealed Daily Article: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 by David Gordon One of the most important recent advances in libertarian theory has come in the field of intellectual property. Several writers, Stephan Kinsella most notably among them, have argued that patents and copyrights should not form part of a proper libertarian law code. These writers modify and extend the work of Murray Rothbard, who allowed copyrights but not patents. |
| bigg Apr 08, 2009 4:54 PM EDT |
Bob: I may regret asking this, but I'm curious as to the libertarian objection to patents and copyright. Are they viewed as bad because they are a government policy that restricts someone from doing something (and thus not different from the usual libertarian argument) or is there some other reason for the objection. I realize that there is probably not a consensus, but I do follow (and largely accept) the arguments against patents and copyright by Boldrin, Levine, and others who are not libertarians, but have noticed that a lot of libertarians are in that group. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 08, 2009 5:22 PM EDT |
> I may regret asking this I promise to be gentle. :^) The "libertarian", or better yet the "non-coercive" argument, is that so-called "intellectual property" only exists because of artificial monopoly grants by government. Ideas are "non-scarce". My using someone else's idea does not in any way deprive them of their use of that idea, or anyone else's use of that idea. So the idea itself isn't something that can be considered "stolen". "Libertarians" are very much in the "demonstrate harm" camp. Looking at your building, and building another one that looks like it, isn't theft. Neither is "Variations On A Theme By Paganini". I might very well license my code, to keep this in programming, and if it gets out in violation of that license I could file suit only for contract violation. Third parties who receive that code I would have no recourse against because they and I have no contract. That's also the argument for freedom in reverse engineering. If you want to get into utilitarian arguments, there's the benefits of openly published science and mathematics, but I prefer to keep out of the quagmire of utilitarianism and stick to principles. |
| dinotrac Apr 08, 2009 6:22 PM EDT |
Bob - Sigh. Always the phony libertarian. Your use of somebody else's idea does not deprive them of using that idea, but it does deprive them of any value the idea may have. If you buy a house, you are not obligated to live in it. You may rent it out to others or simply hold onto in anticipation of appreciation. Somebody moving into a house that you are not living in does not deprive you of that house. It's still yours,and, presumably, you could kick them out if you actually wanted to stay there. However, if those folks can just live in your house, they diminish the rental market at the very least. |
| jdixon Apr 08, 2009 8:10 PM EDT |
> ...but it does deprive them of any value the idea may have. No, that's a severe overstatement. In some circumstances, it may deprive them of some of the value the idea had, but almost never all of it. In other cases there is no devaluation at all. The fact that both you and I know about fire doesn't make it any harder for you to heat your home or cook your food. The fact that some ideas are more valuable if not shared is what lead to the guild systems and eventually unions, as well as our current trade secrets laws. |
| dinotrac Apr 08, 2009 9:14 PM EDT |
Quoting: The fact that some ideas are more valuable if not shared is what lead to the guild systems and eventually unions, as well as our current trade secrets laws. It also led to patent law. The idea of patent law was to provide an incentive for people to share advances rather than to keep them secret. For example, you need not be the first person to come up with an invention, at least not in the US, and, I believe, the UK. If you invent something that was previously invented by somebody else but kept secret, you can get the patent. |
| gus3 Apr 08, 2009 9:43 PM EDT |
US patent law is concerned with the first inventor, at least in the letter of the law. For example, there is some question as to whether Alexander Graham Bell was the first to invent the telephone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisha_Gray_and_Alexander_Bell_... (IIRC, the US Congress has recognized Elisha Gray as the inventor.) |
| dinotrac Apr 08, 2009 11:25 PM EDT |
gus3 - As a rule, but, as I pointed out, not always. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 09, 2009 9:24 AM EDT |
> Sigh. Always the phony libertarian. Why the personal attack, Dino? I thought we'd gotten past that level of petty nastiness. Ah well. If you're going to call me "phony", at least identify how. Squatters certainly do deprive me of the use of my house, even if I'm not in it, because it's not vacant when I choose it to be vacant. Vacancy is just as much a choice of an owner as occupation. Take that choice away, and you have stolen the property. I'm all for keeping ideas secret, if that's what you want to do. But under such circumstances, don't be surprised if someone becomes a Leibnitz to your Newton and gets all the credit. (or is that the other way around?) |
| dinotrac Apr 09, 2009 11:08 AM EDT |
Bob - Glad to see I got your dander up. And you are absolutely right about squatters. The same logic applies to IP. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 09, 2009 11:30 AM EDT |
> absolutely right about squatters. The same logic applies to IP. I don't see how. If I have a house that I do not want to use, and someone uses it, they have stolen it from me. If I have an idea that I do not want to use, and someone uses an idea somehow identical to it, *MY* idea is still not used. I have made no use of it, I can continue to not use it. So I'm rather mystified how "the same logic applies to IP". |
| dinotrac Apr 09, 2009 1:36 PM EDT |
Bob - An idea, per se, no. But IP is not about ideas. It is about concrete applications. Trademarks identify a provider. Copyrights protect the creative output of an author. Not the words used, not even, in the broadest sense, the ideas, but the creative output. You and I could both write an essay about zebras. If, however, in expectation of being paid, you did extensive research, spent a little time with zebras, took pictures and video, etc, only to have me take your work and sell it to a magazine under my name, I would have stolen value that you created. Frankly, I cannot see how somebody who purports to be a libertarian has trouble with that concept. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 09, 2009 5:29 PM EDT |
> I cannot see how somebody who purports to be a libertarian has trouble with that concept. What you describe is "fraud". That, indeed, is a crime I agree, but does not require copyright in order to be punishable. That's why libertarians talk about "force or fraud", not just physical force. You seem to have me confused with someone else. |
| dinotrac Apr 09, 2009 7:22 PM EDT |
No, it isn't fraud. In the absence of copyright -- and illegal acts like breaking into your place and physically stealing the work -- I would be completely within my rights to put my name at the top. I might even be nice enough to thank you for contributing some of the background material for my piece. |
| tuxtom Apr 10, 2009 8:30 AM EDT |
Quoting:If I have a house that I do not want to use, and someone uses it, they have stolen it from me. That is flawed logic. If someone is using your house without your permission they are trespassing on your property, but it is still your property and the title is in your possession. Now if they had committed some kind of fraud to get the title transferred out of your name into theirs, then that would be stealing. |
| dinotrac Apr 10, 2009 9:31 AM EDT |
TT - Correct you are. Just goes to show that the wonderful world of property rights ain't as simple as some would have you believe -- and we've never even mentioned minieral rights, easements, rights of way or any of that cool stuff. Property is a legal construct. Without the legal construct, things are just things. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 10, 2009 12:10 PM EDT |
> I would be completely within my rights to put my name at the top. Fraud. It's not your work. All I have to do is demonstrate that you took my work and put your name on it, that's fraud. |
| gus3 Apr 10, 2009 12:35 PM EDT |
Which puts a whole new spin on the SCO lawsuits. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 10, 2009 12:45 PM EDT |
> Which puts a whole new spin on the SCO lawsuits. Easily avoided, by simply giving attribution. > Property is a legal construct. Without the legal construct, things are just things. It's astounding the number of people who seem to think that voluntary association somehow means a Hobbsian war of all against all. "We" have evolved those very rules of property rights, easements, right of way, etc, specifically because it makes it possible to work together and live together without killing each other. It doesn't take a coercive monopoly to create these rules of interaction, but it does take "law enforcement" to change those rules arbitrarily at random times, thus creating chaos. |
| azerthoth Apr 10, 2009 12:51 PM EDT |
Bob, you know that for the most part I agree with your sentiments. That being said though, dino has hit on an interesting point. So I feel compelled to ask: Demonstrate to whom exactly? Allowing that by some strange twist of fate, that government has gotten out if the way, who exactly would you take your case to? The courts dont exist and copyright has been relegated to history. To me, this is the point where the logic chain breaks down, which is why I would make a horrid true libertarian. |
| gus3 Apr 10, 2009 12:57 PM EDT |
Quoting:Easily avoided, by simply giving attribution.I'm not sure that's relevant in the SCO context. They fraudulently portrayed themselves as having authority to enforce Unix licensing terms, as if Unix were their property. Actually, "portrayed" in the past tense is incorrect. They're still spouting that line in their abusive appeals. Edit: To clarify, this only pertains to SCO. I generally agree about the other points about fraud. |
| dinotrac Apr 10, 2009 1:02 PM EDT |
No, Bob, it's not. If I took your work and put my name on it, the new work would be mine. I would kindly thank you for your invaluable assistance. The problem with calling it fraud is that fraud -- the legal kind -- requires damages. In the absence of copyright, you have no basis for action against the recipient of "my" work, hence they suffer no damages. There would even be, in the absence of copyright, a question of whether reliance on my representation of authorship is justifiable in a world without copyright protection. If the buyer couldn't reasonably rely on the representation, there is again no basis for fraud. You would have no action against me in fraud because I would not be deceiving you. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 10, 2009 4:24 PM EDT |
> Demonstrate to whom exactly? Private arbitration and adjudication services have always existed. The history of the international "Law Merchant" is very interesting. I can suggest either Roderick Long's "Answers to Ten Objections to Anarchy", http://mises.org/mp3/MU2004/Long2.mp3 or "The Voluntary City" which goes into several different modes of private arbitration, including what we in the US now call by the artificial distinction "criminal" vs "civil" disputes. http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=17 Dino, > The problem with calling it fraud is that fraud -- the legal kind -- requires damages. Ah HA! So here we have an excellent difference of opinion. Were I on a jury, absent knowing what the particulars are I would rule against the one who took someone else's work and called it their own. That's part of what is called the "social standard". Even (I would say especially!) without the monopoly coercive institution, the social standard would be more important than now, due to the fact that it could not be overruled by fiat from the capital just by some other people putting their names on a piece of paper I've never seen. But how to prove damages? Indeed, I consider that the root of all adjudication. If there is no harm, how can there be a crime? So indeed, it may very well come down to there being no recourse to the "courts" because of someone using your works without permission. Yes, it might very well happen, and while it's a shame, they might get away with it. Even granted that everything you say comes true, how is that worse than the levels of abuse and destructive effects seen now, under the insane copyright and patent laws we have? Shall we make cars illegal because some people die while using them? Bathtubs? Swimming pools? Surely you can't argue that mere theft is anywhere near as important as people dieing, by the THOUSANDS! Think of the CHILDREN! > You would have no action against me in fraud because I would not be deceiving you. Which is almost exactly what Stephen Kinsella said, when I tried to assert that trademark law is a good thing. Yes, I did try that. |
| dinotrac Apr 10, 2009 5:21 PM EDT |
Bob - The real damage lies from the inability -- yes, the lack of freedom -- to invest in such things as articles, books, movies,etc. If there is no protection for the value you create, there is no way to invest unless you are a wealthy hobbyist or some such thing. That, to me, is a real loss. Intellectual property provides a basis for letting people create things that could not, as a practical matter, be otherwise created. I will agree with you that the concept has been corrupted, especially in the realm of copyright where the monopoly grant seems to grow every time I turn around, but, conceptually, it's a good and useful thing. One, by the way, which protects freedom better and more completely, IMHO, than it's absence. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 10, 2009 7:28 PM EDT |
> If there is no protection for the value you create, there is no way to invest unless you are a wealthy hobbyist or some such thing. Yes, you're right, that may very well happen. I'm not going to disagree with you, but I am going to go out on a limb and assert that arguing from "utility" is just another way to end up with "might makes right". Your freedom to create is not impaired by not having copyright. Songwriters and performers, story tellers and writers, will just have to find new ways to make money, the way they did before copyright. Dickens wrote his books a chapter at a time, published in magazines as serials. It didn't matter if it was stolen, because he'd already made his money and the magazine had already sold their copies. We could easily return to that model rather than the "paperback" style of today. And if music made its money by performance rather than by CD sales? The best would still make money, just like the Grateful Dead did. |
| ColonelPanik Apr 11, 2009 8:54 PM EDT |
Have we reached Zero yet? |
| dinotrac Apr 11, 2009 11:42 PM EDT |
>Your freedom to create is not impaired by not having copyright. How utterly idiotic. My freedom to do anything is limited by my need to eat and have shelter. If I cannot feed myself doing one thing, I must do another. What could be sillier from a libertarian standpoint than to force somebody to abandon valuable skills -- and make no mistake, the fact that people wish to take your output means that it has some value -- to toil at something for which he has lesser gifts? If that is the true meaning of libertarianism, then it is an idiot's siren, deserving of no serious consideration by rational people. |
| gus3 Apr 12, 2009 12:21 AM EDT |
dino, your comment says nothing about copyright. It talks about food, shelter, and clothing, but it makes no case for or against copyright. It doesn't even mention it except in the quote. Yes, your freedom to create may be impaired by other things, but you say nothing about how it may be impaired by copyright. Your comment is just a straw-man argument. |
| dinotrac Apr 12, 2009 8:27 AM EDT |
gus3 - Freedom to create is not impaired by copyright. It is protected by copyright. As to being a straw man argument, I suggest you look up the meaning. |
| gus3 Apr 12, 2009 9:22 AM EDT |
My second paragraph may be poorly worded, but the first para stands as it is. You ranted about something that has nothing to do with the quote. As for what I think is your actual point, how many societies in history had no copyright? [Lots.] And how many of them had no art? [Zero.] The desire to create is part of what makes us human. We can incorporate it into the economy by legal code, or not, but there will always be creative people. Protecting the freedom to create falls under Freedom of Speech (more or less), not copyright. |
| montezuma Apr 12, 2009 10:29 AM EDT |
Gus, I think the issue is the attachment of mercantile value to creativity. The argument is that one needs to protect this mercantile value.I don't think that is at all clear and depends a lot on the activity under consideration. For example a scientist needs no protection under copyright because they derive their payback through reputation rather than money. An invention with utilitarian value I think is creativity with both a potential monetary value and also a potentially large community value. Whether it should be protected by patents kind of depends on the situation and an idealogical argument is not very productive in my opinion. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 12, 2009 12:09 PM EDT |
We might as well bail out failing car companies too, since if they go bankrupt and can't make the cars they're good at making, regardless if anyone wants to buy them, then they have to be supported by law so that their art is protected. Bilge water, Dino. If you cannot make a living doing what you want to do, it's because no one wants it. Do something else, or, like Van Gough, die for your "art". |
| azerthoth Apr 12, 2009 12:18 PM EDT |
If you enjoy doing something that you cant make a living at ... that is called either an obsession or a hobby (perhaps both). |
| dinotrac Apr 12, 2009 3:08 PM EDT |
Oh Bob, you keep spouting the same lie, refusing to admit your own contradiction. Query me this, oh great and wise Bob: What harm can copyright do if the the things people create have no value? The answer is none because there cannot be an imperative to take that which has no value. Face it: You are no libertarian. You are a selfishtarian, with a philosophy that amounts to little more than "Mine, mine, mine." |
| gus3 Apr 12, 2009 4:21 PM EDT |
dino, your question is premised on the assumption that no created thing has value. Again, a straw-man. The value of the creation is determined by the buyer and the seller. If someone wads up a paper, calls it "art," and someone else will pay $300 for it, then that's its value. It doesn't matter whether or not you would pay nothing, or ten times as much, for the same thing. Then again, calling a particular arrangement of light-switches and circuit breakers an "invention" or a "creation" is a stretch. The switches may be patent-able, but it is a legal fallacy to patent the act of turning that switch on or off. That's on par with telling Van Gogh that he could make any shape except a circle with his own burnt sienna crayon. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 12, 2009 4:53 PM EDT |
> Face it: You are no libertarian. A libertarian neither advocates, nor deligates, the initiation of force. That's all. By advocating the violent imprisonment and death (which is the ultimate result of all law enforcement) for having harmed NO ONE, it is you who is demonstrating you are not a libertarian. Not that you have ever claimed to be one. By NOT advocating such violence, I am demonstrating my dedication to the non-initiation of force principle. You are free to license your work to someone who wants to enter into a contract with you, under any terms you and they agree to. If they break that contract, prosecute them for that breach. How can I be prosecuted for "copyright violation" when I have signed no contract, made no agreement? This is exactly why "shrink-wrap licenses" failed. Please, if you would be so very kind as to show where I have lied. |
| dinotrac Apr 12, 2009 4:56 PM EDT |
gus3 - Sigh. Try reading the words. |
| dinotrac Apr 12, 2009 5:04 PM EDT |
Bob - You are right. I am not a libertarian. I thought I leaned that way, but I am starting to conclude that libertarianism is like communism. It sounds nice when you talk about it, but could never work in a real world with real people. The lie is in the form of a great lie, not an specific falsehood of fact. [quote} If you cannot make a living doing what you want to do, it's because no one wants it. [/quote] There lies the problem. Why should you care about copyright at all unless the absence of copyright can steal the ability of somebody to profit from the value they create? If nobody want the creation, the copyright has no effect. The truth is, you are not so much interested in liberty writ large. You are more interested in a three year old's form of freedom: "Nobody can tell ME what to do!" |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 12, 2009 7:48 PM EDT |
> Why should you care about copyright at all unless the absence of copyright can steal the ability of somebody to profit from the value they create? Because in order to be free, I must allow others to be free. If I rationalize coercion merely because I agree with it, I have nothing to say when someone else uses coercion against me because THEY agree with it. I do not want to do drugs, and I am against the drug war. I do not want to drive dangerously fast, and I am against arbitrary speed limits. I do not want to die in a car crash, and I am against mandatory seatbelts and airbags. I do not want to rob people of their work, and I am against copyright. If you wish to accuse me of being selfish, the you're also going to have to admit that I want it for everyone. Which is not selfish at all. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 12, 2009 7:57 PM EDT |
> The truth is, you are not so much interested in liberty writ large. Please retract that. Such a statement is not worthy of you. |
| azerthoth Apr 12, 2009 8:18 PM EDT |
Quoting: I do not want to drive dangerously fast, and I am against arbitrary speed limits. You know the first two things are mutually contradictory don't you. If you were the only person who ever drove then perhaps it might make sense, but you dont live in a vacuum. The last thing is self contradictory on its face. Quoting:I do not want to do drugs, and I am against the drug war. Thats the only thing that does make sense as its a personal choice that effects no one but yourself. |
| gus3 Apr 12, 2009 8:43 PM EDT |
dino, I did read your words. In fact, this is what you wrote:Quoting:What harm can copyright do if the the things people create have no value?And I answered that by pointing out the fallacy. Or are you trying to show me that you didn't write what I quote? |
| jdixon Apr 12, 2009 9:48 PM EDT |
> You know the first two things are mutually contradictory don't you. I think the key word in the first one is "arbitrary", which you don't appear to have taken into account. He didn't say he was against justifiable speed limits. As for the second one, you're simply incorrect. Not wearing a seatbelt or having an airbag affects only your own safety, not the safety of others. And that completely ignores that fact that wearing a seatbelt can kill you in circumstances where you otherwise might otherwise have survived. Yes, the odds are in your favor, but sometimes the odds don't play out. Airbags are also know to have their problems in certain circumstances. > The last thing is self contradictory on its face. Would you care to explain how? I certainly can't see it. |
| dinotrac Apr 12, 2009 10:03 PM EDT |
jdixon - You factually wrong wrt seatbelts. Airbags only affect the safety of those in your own vehicle (including other drivers), but seatbelts are a different animal. Airbags remove control for the driver, but seatbelts can help a driver to retain control in violent situations that would otherwise toss him or her about. That can mean saving then lives of passengers and it can mean saving the lives of others not in the car. |
| azerthoth Apr 12, 2009 10:06 PM EDT |
copyright protects the works, otherwise as Dino has stated, you do the writting, I take the paper, I get the credit, you get ... laughed at. pretty simple when looked at in simple terms. So I guess in effect the statement is 100% true, if there is no copyright then you can take whatever literary works you care to from whomever you care to. and since there is no protection of those works, there is no theft. No credit or paycheck either, but hey, this is someone else's perfect world. The nice thing about all this is nowhere in this elysium dream of non coercion, has anyone done anything to mitigate basic human greed. That can not be dealt with in a non coercive way, plain and simple. |
| dinotrac Apr 12, 2009 10:07 PM EDT |
gus3 - Why are you being so silly? Surely you are smarter than to say the things you are saying. Have you no notion of context? Have you read any of the thread at all? Has it occurred to you that one statement may relate to another and that the other is relevant to its meaning? |
| dinotrac Apr 12, 2009 10:10 PM EDT |
azer - Yup. It's a fairly strange view of liberty, too. If somebody else's freedom to derive fair value for their work inconveniences you, they shouldn't be allowed to do it. And somehow the world is a better place even though the only reason to abhor copyright is that it makes something of value not be freely available, which means that stuff protected by copyright may well have value which means that creating it creates value, which, one presumes, is a good thing in a free -- and free market -- society. |
| jdixon Apr 12, 2009 10:45 PM EDT |
> ...but seatbelts can help a driver to retain control in violent situations that would otherwise toss him or her about. You would care to quote any factual statistics about the matter Dino? I've heard that stated by other folks numerous times, but no one's ever bothered to back it up. The simple fact is that if you're "in violent situations that would otherwise toss him or her about", you've almost certainly already lost control of your vehicle, and any effect the seat belt may have is too little, too late. I can state this from personal experience as someone who's been in such situations, both with and without seatbelts. I'd say the odds of a seatbelt making any difference in such a situation are about the same as those of actually dying because you're wearing the seatbelt, which can also happen. > which means that stuff protected by copyright may well have value which means that creating it creates value, which, one presumes, is a good thing in a free -- and free market -- society. Presumably, yes. But not assuredly. There's a rational basis for the argument that copyright does more harm than good. Since I'm unconvinced on the matter, I'm staying out of that section of the discussion as much as possible. |
| dinotrac Apr 13, 2009 8:00 AM EDT |
jdixon - Won't quote statistics because I have no idea how you'd gather them. I know from personal experience, however. May not impress you, but it impresses me. As to almost certainly lost control of your vehicle, that's just not true, at least if you presume that control, once lost, cannot be regained. I'm a guessin' you didn't learn to drive in Michigan, where donut practice is de rigeur. >There's a rational basis for the argument that copyright does more harm than good. I have yet to see one that wasn't anecdotal. Copyright, overextended and poorly implemented, probably does more harm than good. At present, copyright is heading toward a perpetual grant, which eliminates the original bargain of a temporary monopoly in exchange for a release of something new and good into the public domain. That, I would agree, is a bad deal. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 13, 2009 8:29 AM EDT |
Az, > You know the first two things are mutually contradictory don't you. Can you tell me, then, why, after the repeal of the 55mph speed limit, accidents didn't increase? The US is an excellent place to do studies like this. Not only are there 50 different federal administrative districts which pass laws (like seatbelts, drinking ages, firearms prohibitions) at different times, so that effects can be tracked, the federal government occasionally enacts or repeals sweeping laws where overall effects can be checked before and after. One of the more interesting effects of this is that such "obvious" facts, such as "speed kills", when tested against these changes in the laws, fall completely on their face. True believers never let facts deter them, however, so the polypragmatoi who are convinced they know best how others should live their lives continue to get such legislation enacted for all the hellish best of intentions. > ...in this elysium dream of non coercion... This is what really pisses me off. Being derisively accused of being a Utopian by specifically and deliberately eschewing Utopianism. It is the Utopians who claim, constantly, that with just one more law, or one more program, one more thing people will be prohibited from doing, that the problems they are espousing today will go away and everyone will be safer. It never works, but the claims are made over, and over, and the people making the absurd claims are touted as "humanitarians". Yet when I present the fact that people get along well dealing with others day in and day out without fear of the Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads if they violate some statute they never heard of, harming NO ONE, I get accused of being the Utopian. Notice Dino's example depends upon someone taking an unpublished work and claiming it as their own. It's unpublished, so copyright has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT EITHER. Copyright isn't going to make any difference at all, yet this is supposed to be a devastating success for copyright? I'm perfectly happy to let someone believe that the abuses of copyright are offset by its benefits. I believe the evidence concludes the opposite, that the destructive nature of monopoly (that are constantly touted as evil when it's private industry) are just as destructive when that monopoly is a government grant of copyright/patent, and that the benefits of the free flow of information outweigh the detrimental possibility of Newton/Leibniz conflict over authorship. And that is not even getting into the principle of not using force except against an invader. Great art, wondrous works, titanic projects, sublime music and insightful plays were all made before copyright. I fully expect they will continue to be made without copyright, because there is a demand for it. JD, > He didn't say he was against justifiable speed limits. Here's another example of unintended consequences. By making so many speed limits that are constantly violated by everyone (yes, everyone!), in those places where a speed limit is a really good idea they are also violated (since there's no way to know it's important this time) and so people are surprised when they get hurt. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 13, 2009 8:49 AM EDT |
> nowhere in this elysium dream of non coercion, has anyone done anything to mitigate basic human greed. That can not be dealt with in a non coercive way, plain and simple. Can you give any example where basic human greed has been mitigated by coercion? Or, shall we bring up the endless examples of individuals in a position to wield coercion using that power to augment their own greed? Godwin's Law in action. Voluntary interaction is a situation where basic human greed is harnessed as a force for good: In order to profit, I must serve my customers better than anyone else (or at least convince my customers that I'm doing so, same thing). When I don't serve my customers, they stop buying my product. If I make a mistake, if I get greedy in a nasty way or otherwise reduce the benefits of my service, there is a competitor that will step in and provide the service in a way my former customers prefer. If someone does not believe themselves to be better off, voluntary trade does not occur. Each transaction ends up with greater wealth for involved parties, as I value the grocer's apple (or big screen computer monitor) more than my dollar while he values my dollar more than his apple. Coercion is a negative-sum interaction. To gain, I take from someone else so that they lose. I might justify it by saying that I will use that wealth (after providing for my own upkeep, of course) to provide some needed service, but if that service were so much in demand I wouldn't have to take the wealth to provide it in the first place. The taxpayer is then left with less wealth to use for things they actually value, while at the same time the "service" provided by coercion crowds out voluntary alternatives. |
| dinotrac Apr 13, 2009 9:20 AM EDT |
>It's unpublished, so copyright has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT EITHER. Copyright isn't going to make any difference at all, yet this is supposed to be a devastating success for copyright? Now I see part of the problem: You don't know very much about copyright. An authored work is protected by copyright from the time it is authored. It's been that way since 1976. If you thought about it logically, you would realize that. Otherwise, we would be able to get copies of the source code for all proprietary software. Re speed limits: Very ambiguous what the data really says on that. The most dangerous roads in America are rural highways with high speed limits. In Texas, you can find what seem to be endless driveways with 70 mph speed limits. That seems like a bad idea. Modern divided highways seem like a different animal, but you still end up needing regulation: without proper lane discipline, a road where cars can travel a wide range of speeds would be deadly. Likewise, some assurance that cars are in proper condition to drive is required to protect prudent drivers from irresponsible ones. What seems increasingly clear is that too many stop signs and stop lights make traffic worse and more dangerous. Planners in a number of places are starting to pull them out and make drivers rely on their own attention with good results. |
| jdixon Apr 13, 2009 9:29 AM EDT |
> I know from personal experience, however. My personal experience is the exact opposite, so that leaves us at an impasse. :( > if you presume that control, once lost, cannot be regained. If you're talking about a life threatening event, in general, no it can't. Those tend to happen too quickly to allow you to recover control, as the key detail as to whether an accident is life threatening or not is almost always speed. There are undoubtedly exceptions, of course, but that's the problem with this entire subthread. The statistics to back up anyone's position simply aren't available. In the absence of such statistics, all you can go on is personal experience. But unless it can be proven that seatbelts save the lives of other people (not just the user) at a significantly greater rate then it kills them, a mandatory seatbelt law isn't justified (imo, of course). |
| jdixon Apr 13, 2009 9:35 AM EDT |
> Very ambiguous what the data really says on that. See my above comment. :) > The most dangerous roads in America are rural highways with high speed limits. That's on a per mile driven basis, undoubtedly. The actual number of deaths will be much lower, as these roads don't have the traffic an interstate highway does. Again, see my above comment concerning speed being the primary factor in life threatening accidents. Higher speed limits mean that a higher percentage of accidents will involve fatalities, while they may actually reduce the overall number of accidents. It's somewhat of a no win situation from a regulatory perspective. :( |
| dinotrac Apr 13, 2009 9:36 AM EDT |
>If you're talking about a life threatening event, in general, no it can't. Excuse me? I'm beginning to think that you've never driven a car. If you had, you must surely know that: 1. The best way to stay alive is not to have an accident. This can sometimes require dramatic maneuvers -- an act greatly aided by being planted firmly in your seat. As to speed always being involved, that can be closing speed. In two care collisions, a car coming at you can provide the fatal force. 2. Skids are recoverable. That's the Michigan donuts thing. Again, staying in the seat helps. 3. Losing control after a non-lethal collision can send you into one that kills you. One reason I despise air bags, by the way. No safety gain over seat belts, but plenty of extra danger. |
| dinotrac Apr 13, 2009 9:39 AM EDT |
>That's on a per mile driven basis, undoubtedly. Probably a trip basis, too, as those trips tend to be a little lengthy, which would reduce the per-mile basis. But -- COME ON -- I think you're smarter than that, so -- why so obstinate? The only measures of danger that matter are the ones that tell how likely you are to face the undesirable consequence. Very few people in the United States get mowed down by machine gun fire each year. I would hope that even you might concede that it's dangerous to stand there and let somebody fire a machine gun at you. |
| jdixon Apr 13, 2009 9:49 AM EDT |
> I'm beginning to think that you've never driven a car. Let's see... Several thousand motorcycle miles, In round figues, and to the best of my memory: 50K in my first car, 120K in the second, 120K in the third, 150K in the third, 120K on the fourth, and 65K so far on the current one. I'd say I have some driving experience. > This can sometimes require dramatic maneuvers -- an act greatly aided by being planted firmly in your seat. Most drivers can't do that, Dino. I'm not that good at it, even with my experience. I find it much easier to avoid traffic situations than to steer out of them. > Skids are recoverable. That's the Michigan donuts thing. Again, staying in the seat helps. They can be yes. It depends on the conditions. I've been in both types. Ice is particularly problematic, as you undoubtedly know. > No safety gain over seat belts, I doubt the statistics would back that up, especially if you include not fatal injuries. |
| dinotrac Apr 13, 2009 9:55 AM EDT |
>I doubt the statistics would back that up, especially if you include not fatal injuries. I don't think anybody keeps the statistics to analyze that. Properly worn seatbelt/shoulder betls can protect you from high speed crashes quite nicely. Air bags weren't touted because seat belts were deficiient, but because people weren't wearing them. |
| jdixon Apr 13, 2009 9:57 AM EDT |
> I think you're smarter than that, so -- why so obstinate? About what? The benfits of seatbelts or the dangerousness of rural highways? I'm not disagreeing about either. On the former, I'm arguing that from a libertarian perspective the existing statistics don't justify mandatory seatbelt laws. On the latter, I'm pointing out that the statistics can be misleading unless you understand them. |
| gus3 Apr 13, 2009 10:58 AM EDT |
dino, That's twice you've used the "you're smarter than that" comment. How many more will get that slung at them? |
| dinotrac Apr 13, 2009 11:00 AM EDT |
jdixon - Went back and re-read your posts on speed. Looks like I misunderstood the first time around, so -- never mind. |
| dinotrac Apr 13, 2009 11:01 AM EDT |
gus3 - I'm sorry gus. Didn't mean to offend you. How about this: "You're not smarter than that.". Are we good now? |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 13, 2009 11:20 AM EDT |
> An authored work is protected by copyright from the time it is authored. It's been that way since 1976. Which, again, does nothing to actually prevent abuse. I still have to prove I wrote something before someone else. Dino, seriously, you see this as an important service. In many ways, SO DO I. So how to solve this without coercion? Private registry. Obviously, it's very important to an author to be able to prove ownership, so let them register it in a 3rd party registrar. I'm all for credit where credit is due. What I will not do is create massive bureaucracy and punish everyone just because I think it's a good idea. Then, as with all other "crimes", demonstrate harm and collect damages. If you cannot prove harm, then what good is the government program doing anyway? Either there is harm, or there is no crime. As for roads, I do have a very serious question for you: Why aren't you blaming the providers of these dangerous, arbitrarily marked throughfares, for the failings of their product? GOVERNMENT The days of privately provided roads, hailed at the time for their quality and safety, are long gone. However, they have been chronicled many times. The book I'm reading right now is called "The Voluntary City: Choice, Community, and Civil Society" http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=17 Here's a quick mp3 by Walter Block on the subject of roads, for anyone interested: http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/?p=episode&name=2008-08-1... Edit: Ooo! Walter has a daily article today on the subject on Mises.org too: "Open Letter To Mothers Against Drunk Driving" http://mises.org/story/3419 |
| gus3 Apr 13, 2009 11:31 AM EDT |
C'mon, dino. I've heard better ones than that at noon on the playground. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 13, 2009 11:42 AM EDT |
JD, my FJ1200 is rusting in the garage right now. I miss it, but NC is _flat_ and boring out here on the coastal plain. I've seen friends die and nearly die on (or rather, off) their motorcycles, and none of them (the nearly group) blames the government for not putting up the right signs. When California enacted their helmet law, doctors couldn't just put "head injury" on the death certificates any more. So they had to put the other causes. As even Dino admits, the statistics are arbitrary on the effects of the laws. But I would much rather depend upon insurance companies to reward good driving/riding habits than the government to try to mandate them with arbitrary law, after law, after law.... |
| dinotrac Apr 13, 2009 12:11 PM EDT |
>Why aren't you blaming the providers of these dangerous, arbitrarily marked throughfares, for the failings of their product? Why do you assume that I'm not? |
| jdixon Apr 13, 2009 12:29 PM EDT |
> Looks like I misunderstood the first time around, so -- never mind. De nada. It happens. > I've seen friends die and nearly die on (or rather, off) their motorcycles, and none of them (the nearly group) blames the government for not putting up the right signs. Yeah, helmet laws fall into the same category. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 13, 2009 1:51 PM EDT |
> Why do you assume that I'm not? Because of the long tendency that if it's something I think government should have no part in, you consider government intervention to be needed. |
| dinotrac Apr 13, 2009 2:10 PM EDT |
Bob - Then your logic is backwards. If I presumed the roads to be a private responsibility, I should blame the individuals who did not get together to make better roads -- similar to those businessfolks in Hawaii who recently banded together to repair a flood-damaged road after the local government said it would need millions of dollars and 2 years to do the job. If I presume roads to be a legitimate government activity, I should blame the government when it builds unsafe roads. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 13, 2009 4:10 PM EDT |
Dino, My logic is not backwards. You're blaming individuals for the results of government roads. You're not blaming those who built, operate, and have made themselves completely un-liable for the results of their acts. Without question you and I talk past each other consistently. There is no other way you could so often be so completely wrong. Rather than consider you an idiot, I must conclude that you and I just are not talking about the same things. |
| dinotrac Apr 13, 2009 5:29 PM EDT |
>You're blaming individuals for the results of government roads. How do you figure? You are making that up out of whole cloth. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 14, 2009 8:24 AM EDT |
> You are making that up out of whole cloth. Then I didn't understand anything that you said. |
| dinotrac Apr 14, 2009 8:58 AM EDT |
>Then I didn't understand anything that you said. That I could believe, but don't. More likely, you're just being cranky. |
| Sander_Marechal Apr 14, 2009 9:06 AM EDT |
I can't see any FOSS angle to any of this except for the first few posts. |
| dinotrac Apr 14, 2009 9:47 AM EDT |
Sander - There isn't. We just went off having fun. |
| tuxtom Apr 14, 2009 10:17 AM EDT |
Joyriding, huh Dino? When you go real fast those posts look like a picket fence. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 14, 2009 10:25 AM EDT |
> That I could believe, but don't. The simple fact is that if what I've said about your assertions is "wrong", then I didn't understand your assertions. I do wish you would simply take what I say instead of constantly reinterpreting to fit your own bias. That particular twisting has infuriated me since we first met. |
| dinotrac Apr 14, 2009 10:26 AM EDT |
tt - I think it would be fun to get the site designers to set something up like that Civic commercial with the musical road. Not sure how it would work, but built-in site-induced background music would be a unique selling proposition. |
| dinotrac Apr 14, 2009 10:29 AM EDT |
Bob - I referred to a single statement you made -- that somehow I blamed drivers for roads built by the states. I am completely perplexed at how you came to that conclusion, unless you believe that government is simply the "hands of the people" or some such thing. Knowing that you are a libertarian makes that seem unlikely. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 14, 2009 10:39 AM EDT |
> I am completely perplexed at how you came to that conclusion Which is why it is obvious that I have no understood anything of what you wrote. But you don't think that's true, so I am left standing here in complete confusion about what it is you have chosen to believe IS true. Unfortunately, I'm now left with nothing but repeating what I've already said. |
| dinotrac Apr 14, 2009 10:53 AM EDT |
>Unfortunately, I'm now left with nothing but repeating what I've already said. Given your utter unwillingness to explain yourself or to even suggest what I said that could lead to such a ridiculous conclusion, better to just let it go. |
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!