vix86 wrote:

I have heard of people buying a game, not being able to get it to run on their system and then turning around and downloading it off Pirate Bay because the DRM is stripped out and it actually works.

I actually had to do this when my parents bought TurboTax. Their activation key just didn't work, so I had to download a crack for their legitimate install. Imagine the headache they would have to have gone through if I wasn't there to do that...

... i don't really see copyright as a grand ideology, it's more like a consolation gesture necessitated by the capitalist system we live under in order to preserve diversity and competition within arts and culture, despite the fact that capitalism is nowadays a horribly outdated model for society, (and one of the ways this shows itself is with respect to digital copy), but to which we don't have a reasonable alternative as yet.

Since i don't ascribe to the grand ideology that is capitalism to begin with, it's not at all that i think copyright is some ideal to be fought for, i just think it's the best option under the circumstances. And there's plenty wrong with copyright law as it stands, but that doesn't mean that abolishing it entirely would bring about the best results. It means that the laws should be changed to make it better.

I'm perfectly willing to consider alternatives... like the one i gave in the post above, as long as it has desirable outcomes.

As to "ideas" being protected by the authors keeping them secret.........??? How is that good for anybody? Don't you like reading books, watching movies, listening to music, or playing games....? (and why would anyone even make them just to keep them secret?) This is the point, no? It's horrible for creativity, and not an outcome that anyone reasonable would desire...

nadiatims wrote:

Icecream wrote:

Since i don't ascribe to the grand ideology that is capitalism to begin with

What grand ideology? Capitalism is just trade. People exchanging goods and services with each other. It predates agriculture.

Which is based on the grand ideology of "property ownership", no?

Besides which, it's more than exchanging goods and services. It's exchanging goods and services in a way which lets you profit for yourself... i.e. theft. Exchanging goods or services for more than they are really worth.

(and before anyone says anything, i don't ascribe to the grand ideology of the opposite of these things either;))

nadiatims wrote:

The point is when secrets have value, they can be revealed in exchange for money.

Yes, they could. But without any copyright, and with free digital copy, a secret no longer has any monetary value the instant it's revealed, which means that nobody would exchange it for money in the first place. (regardless of it's artistic merit or value... this being one of the problems with a system that recognises only capital as valuable)

nadiatims wrote:

Icecream wrote:

It's horrible for creativity, and not an outcome that anyone reasonable would desire...

restricting the free flow of ideas is good for creativity?

Like i said, it's not ideal. However, restricting the flow of an already existing idea to those willing to pay for it doesn't harm creativity itself, it simply harms the spread of that idea. Not paying for creative works would harm creativity far more.

When we're talking about certain types of patents, where certain pieces of knowledge would have a big impact on the advancement of science, there are much bigger problems with harming the spread of ideas, but this isn't really a problem that creative works face...

Last edited by IceCream (2012 January 26, 10:21 am)

nadiatims wrote:

Icecream wrote:

Besides which, it's more than exchanging goods and services. It's exchanging goods and services in a way which lets you profit for yourself... i.e. theft. Exchanging goods or services for more than they are really worth.

Suppose you have 2 tribes. Tribe A lives in part of the forest where apples are abundant. Tribe B lives in a part of the forest where oranges are abundant. Every once a while they trade these goods 1 apple for 1 orange. To tribe A, oranges are more valuable (they'd have to trek all the way to the other side of the forest). To tribe B, apples are more valuable. So both sides profit. If either side feels ripped off, they decline the trade. Simple. Where's the theft?

Right... this is an example of trade. However, capitalism doesn't work on that principle. In capitalist society, companies profit at the expense of consumers, and directors profit at the expense of their workers. They always exchange goods or services in a way in which doesn't reflect their true value, creating profit for themselves at the expense of someone else. They can do that because they hold the balance of power in society. So both sides might profit, but one side always profits more than the other.

Here is an example:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree … ay-robbery

George Monbiot wrote:

Over the past 10 years, chief executives' pay has risen nine times faster than that of the median earner. Some bosses (British Gas, Xstrata and Barclays for example) are now being paid over 1,000 times the national median wage. The share of national income captured by the top 0.1% rose from 1.3% in 1979 to 6.5% by 2007.

These rewards bear no relationship to risk. The bosses of big companies, though they call themselves risk-takers, are 13 times less likely to be sacked than the lowest paid workers. Even if they lose their jobs and never work again, they will have invested so much and secured such generous pensions and severance packages that they'll live in luxury for the rest of their lives. The risks are carried by other people.

*************

nadiatims wrote:

As for property ownership, this stems from the fact that there is inherently cost involved in theft (risk of retaliation). As long as essential items are plentiful (as should be the case with competition driving down consumer prices), it is easier to recognise whoever claims a resource first as its owner and gain that resource through trade rather than violence. In other words something equivalent to property rights emerges naturally without the intervention of law.

Well... looking at Somalia, i'd say it pretty much doesn't. It's hardly a capitalist heaven now is it...

Now, i'm not saying that all property ownership is wrong (indeed, some form of property ownership is probably necessary), but even if the system DID naturally emerge, it doesn't necessarily make it an appealing system to use or the best one possible. This model of property doesn't take into account whether resources are renewable, only whether they are plentiful for now. A better system should always hold those with ownership of resources responsible for using them... the use of resources in a capitalist system is considered a profit making act no matter what, whereas in terms of real value the opposite is true.

It also allows power to fall into the hands of a few at the expense of everyone else. It may be "easier" to recognise whoever claims a resource first as it's owner and trade with them, but that doesn't change the fact that the person claiming the resource in the first place has effectively stolen that resource from everything else living in the world, and can now profit from it, again at the expense of everything else in the world.

Regardless of how it started, it continues mainly with nepotism, and is forced on modern citizens without their consent. They don't have any option except to trade under unfair conditions, precisely because the majority of property and resources belong to a small minority of people.

Last edited by IceCream (2012 January 26, 12:31 pm)

I can see the future being bands and artists making money from selling advert space alongside there works on their sites.

@Surreal

Yeah, i definately agree!!!!! But why do people think that's elitist???

...i really wish that we had an alternative to capitalism that rewarded the fullfilment of responsibility in a much more direct way. Since it's something that at it's heart capitalism is incapable of, there is no way to directly reward it, only make it punishable by law to not fulfill responsibility in the worst cases.

And i think it really does need to be an alternative, because otherwise you will always have the rich outsourcing their responsibilities to someone else.

Slightly off your point, but you can really see this happening in the narrative created around a financial downturn. This is something else that George Monbiot wrote: Reading @MailOnline today, you'd think that deficit was caused by benefit recipients. Not bankers, tax evaders etc #blamethepoor
It's a narrative thats constructed time and again in an economic downturn to justify the cuts they make to the services of those worst off in society, while allowing those who got us in this mess to get off scott free. In other news, the manager of RBS (the bank that had to be taken over by the British government to stop it going bust) gets a million pound bonus, and we're to accept that because "he's doing a good job now" and "nobody would do it for less". "Barclays manager gets a 10 million bonus, so what can we do..."
erm...

I'm glad you found the time to watch a bit of those documentaries!!! It really is eye-opening, right?!? So sick...

well, it's a failure of capitalism to the extent that it's a failure of unrestrained capitalism. Unrestrained capitalism is an ugly ugly beast.

I don't think we necessarily need a revolution... we just need a ton more restraints on capitalism. Yeah, it'll be messy and will continually need to be updated, but there's no system that can just be left to run on it's own.

On the other hand, it'd be nice if there were alternative systems proposed as well. People seem to have given up trying to think of alternatives that could run well. But capitalism, restrained capitalism, and communism are surely not the only options.

One thing i think is interesting is that with the internet, there's a lot of new forms of currency and economic systems that could be created.
Of course, they would have to run along with the current system atm, but i think we can start to imagine a world where other forms of currency... more socially responsible ones are possible.

"Like watching a duck bark" loooool. Yeah. Actually, while undemocratic, the House of Lords isn't as bad as it seems. I mean, it's bad when you want to get rid of traditional stuff like fox hunting, but in general, while there are undeniably some business interests there, a large proportion of the Lords come from positions of social responsibility like Judges, were heads of charities, social services, etc. Even the old peers are often only land rich rather than business rich. So it could definately be a lot worse...

Most recently, they opposed the benefits cap of £26,000 Cameron wants, thank god. <<This type of reform is sadly exactly what you're going to get when you have a PR man as Prime Minister. Because anyone who doesn't use any critical ability goes "People on benefits getting £26,000 a year!!!!11!!??????/" without thinking about what that actually means... families having to live on 62p per person per day, because child benefit is included in that figure, and housing prices are too high. (or without thinking what better alternatives there might be that would also bring about smaller benefits bills)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree … -62p-a-day

Last edited by IceCream (2012 January 27, 6:37 am)

@IceCream

Right we need more restraint, but the problem is that to get that restraint we need to get people in office which will enact the law for it. The system has become corrupted though and is largely ruled by money. This election primary in the US has been really bad because there was a court ruling which basically said that restricting the use of money in elections by outside third party groups--SuperPACs as they are now called--was basically restricting freedom of speech. So now these SuperPACs can take in millions of dollars and run ad campaigns across the airwaves. People let these ads sway their judgement on candidates and sometimes you end up with the worst possible candidate coming out on top. Even before SuperPACs though money still had a huge effect on the elections. Then there is lobbying, and I think that is even more abhorrent than money in elections.

Point is; barring some crazy miracle where people wise up and start demanding more from their politicians, the only way for change will be through revolution where people are thrown out of office and social elites are 'tumbled.' The other problem with this though is that it will have to involve more than half the population coming to the decision to this. If only 10% were to revolt it would probably just get painted as a revolt by the minorities and degenerates of society, by the media.

Please please tell me you aren't talking about bitcoins >_<.

That's interesting I didn't realize that about the members of the House of Lords.
That number is pretty hard for me to put into perspective without knowing how much rent is per month usually in say London, Glasgow, Sheffield, etc. (I hear London is astronomical). Isn't this reform more a result of Cameron being a Tory though?
That article actually does mention something that is a huge problem though which is that the people stuck somewhere between "not so poor" and "not so ok" are usually the ones that are getting hit hard because they can't get on welfare. They end up barely scrapping by a lot of the time and end up disadvantaged probably more so than some people on welfare who are poor...weird how that works.

Last edited by vix86 (2012 January 27, 7:30 am)

I think we need to get down to the core of the argument somehow rather than arguing individual points, but anyway...

nadiatims wrote:

Icecream wrote:

Right... this is an example of trade. However, capitalism doesn't work on that principle.

Capitalism doesn't work on the principle of trade? the idea of capitalism is simply that people should be free to form agreements with each other. These agreements will not always be mutually beneficial or free it's true, but in a market free of intervention from an effectively all powerful entity (eg the state, (untouchable to the vast majority of people)), they will be beneficial most of the time. People can then invest their profits to increase their productivity and standard of living and the standard of living of others (by increasing the availability of necessary goods).

Yes, capitalism is beneficial to all of us to some extent, and that's why it's still being used, but it always benefits some more than others. The vast majority of people can take starvation or freezing to death, or they can trade with the rich on unfair terms. So yes, it's beneficial to all of us, but that doesn't mean it's the most desirable system, does it?

Supposing you get rid of the government (whose job it is to at least to try to redistribute because of the inherant unfairness of the terms under which we have to trade with those who are powerful), that isn't an end to their being powerful entities, you do know that, right? The market will never be free of intervention from powerful beings, because the larger the corporation, the more power it has. Tbh, i can't even begin to think why you think it could even possibly be beneficial to society to give companies free reign to do anything they want...

nadiatims wrote:

Icecream wrote:

companies profit at the expense of consumers

sometimes yes, but who is to blame for this? companies or consumers who voluntarily enter into unfavorable agreements? Who is that ensures we have a powerful well resourced state for corporations to lobby in their favor and/or get bailouts?  The CEOs who want lower tax rates, or welfare recipients?

Obviously, the companies are to blame for offering the unfair terms. As i mentioned above, when it's a matter of starving or entering into an unfair contract, which are you going to choose? Because there's NO company that will offer a completely fair trade, (only companies offering slightly less or more unfair trades), it's not like anybody enters into it totally voluntarily, they merely take the best option available to them. Again, the fact that that's the best option on offer doesn't make it the most desirable system to use.

And please remember, if those CEOs didn't offer unfair terms to begin with, there wouldn't be a need for benefits like working tax credits. And if they didn't **** up in such a genius-like manner, there wouldn't be unemployment rising every day.
Who it is that ensures we have a powerful well resourced state is neither the CEO's or the benefit recipients. It's everyone who works day in and day out.

nadiatims wrote:

Icecream wrote:

They always exchange goods or services in a way in which doesn't reflect their true value

How do you determine "true value"? I thought true value is the value someone is willing to pay...I can't sell you an orange for 5$ if you could just as easily get it at $1 except under monopolistic privilege gained with the help of an untouchably powerful ally.

I don't think there necessarily is a perfect way to determine it, which is why redistribution of wealth is necessary.

I'm also still wondering how you think this perfect utopia without a government would end in anything except monopoly by a corporation. i.e. an untouchably powerful thing, whose object is only it's own profit. Not maintaining some form of social contract like the government. Again, how is this possibly a better option?

nadiatims wrote:

Icecream wrote:

So both sides might profit, but one side always profits more than the other.

Yes, but under free market conditions, if an entity stops providing enough benefit, it loses its funding/power pretty darn quickly. The state on the other hand is adept at finding ways to take more while giving less. And it's able to do so because it's sustained by the mass delusion of a populace that is all to eager to believe they can create an entity that will free themselves from the responsibility to look after their own lives. People want to remain perpetual children basically.

Huh? The goal of any business is to make as much profit as possible. That means to take as much as possible while giving the least possible. Yes, if it stops providing any benefit at all, or provides it at a higher cost than it's competitors, it'll lose out. But that doesn't mean they won't provide the least benefit it possibly can.

i also don't know enough about Somalia, so let's leave that for now.

nadiatims wrote:

Icecream wrote:

the use of resources in a capitalist system is considered a profit making act no matter what, whereas in terms of real value the opposite is true.

Suppose under capitalism, I buy an apple from a farmer. The farmer profits by undercutting their competitors. I profit by getting an apple at a cheaper price. It's win win. If demand for apples go down. The farmer starts producing (and therefore lowering the cost) some other commodity for which there is demand. Again win win.

I was trying to make a wider point here, not about apples (which are renewable). Take oil, for example. We treat the use of oil as a profit making act, when really we're taking something away from the world that can't be put back.
A related idea is the clearance of rainforest for palm oil plantations.

What i meant by that comment is that there is never any negative marked against the "owners" of any property for using it's resources, no matter how they use it, it's counted as a profit making act under capitalism, which doesn't reflect the actual situation in the world.
Providing a service may add value, but using a non renewable resource or owning property always takes something away from the world. I'm simply suggesting that it would be nice to have a system that recognised that.

nadiatims wrote:

Icecream wrote:

It also allows power to fall into the hands of a few at the expense of everyone else. It may be "easier" to recognise whoever claims a resource first as it's owner and trade with them, but that doesn't change the fact that the person claiming the resource in the first place has effectively stolen that resource from everything else living in the world, and can now profit from it, again at the expense of everything else in the world.

Things fall into the hands of those who go forth and get them. Sometimes that it is through theft but not always. If a monkey picks an apple from a tree, is that theft? Unfortunately, until we invent a machine that can materialize objects out of nothing, life relies on exploiting the resources at hand. Although you'd probably argue that duplicating tangible objects in that way as if they are IP is actually a bad thing as no one would be able to make a living anymore right?

No, things have fallen into the hands of people who went out and got them centuries ago. Try going and claiming something as your own nowadays, and you'll find that somebody else already owns it. Of course, in a utopia free of government, we could organise groups of workers to redistribute through violence. But i kinda prefer the government redistribution method.

No, i wouldn't claim that it's a bad thing. Like i said before, copyright is a consolatory gesture that's the best option because we live in a capitalist system to begin with. If all objects could be reproduced for free, we wouldn't have any need for capitalism, and would have a different system.

nadiatims wrote:

Icecream wrote:

They don't have any option except to trade under unfair conditions, precisely because the majority of property and resources belong to a small minority of people.

But why does this occur? Be honest, this occurs because people do not take the risk necessary to standup for themselves or one another. They would rather submit themselves to life under a higher power than accept the risk involved in standing as equals. Consider predation on the Savannah. How often does the herd stop running to defend an isolated comrade from hungry lions. They can complain about the injustice all they like, but how many will take a stand? Is it even injustice?

So now you're arguing that it really would be better if stuff was redistributed by violence rather than through a government? Because it'd be more like the wild then? We don't want to live in the wild. That's why we formed societies and social contracts in the 1st place.

nadiatims wrote:

Icecream wrote:

"Reading @MailOnline today, you'd think that deficit was caused by benefit recipients. Not bankers, tax evaders etc #blamethepoor

The funny thing is, is that the bankers are just playing by the rules that the majority create.  Didn't the U.S government basically force banks to give bad loans so people could afford houses? Then everyone's all surprised governments have trouble saying no to bailouts...

Nope, it was the banks who sold on those faulty loans then suddenly decided they had no confidence in them that caused the problem, though yes, the government policy was also fairly retarded. They're all to blame.
Besides which, boom and bust is hardly new, is it.

btw, i don't have a problem with the bailouts in general, it's probably better for society than letting them go bust.

nadiatims wrote:

Icecream wrote:

"People on benefits getting £26,000 a year!!!!11!!??????

Well that's apparently twice the minimum wage. I wish I could get that without having to work 8 hours a day...

ohhh, you're one of the !!!!!??!111?/? people? Did you read the article? If you were in the same situation as a family getting those benefits, but working, you would also be entitled to benefits if you had less than that to live on, yknow. If you're living on 67p a day after rent and heating bills, you'll definately get benefits.
The people who would be getting more than £26,000 would likely have 3 or 4 kids and live in an area without cheap housing. Many of which will have lost their jobs due to the recession (caused by bankers), and who had their kids when they weren't out of work.

You also know, right, that with the form of capitalism we have now, the "ideal" unemployment rate is never 0...?

Icecream wrote:

The vast majority of people can take starvation or freezing to death, or they can trade with the rich on unfair terms.

...or they can deal with their competitors.

Icecream wrote:

Supposing you get rid of the government (whose job it is to at least to try to redistribute because of the inherant unfairness of the terms under which we have to trade with those who are powerful)

see the problem here, is that people who talk about wealth distribution look at points in time, but never trajectories. Things are unfair now, lets fix it now, never mind what created the problem in the first place, or the direction things are moving.

Icecream wrote:

The market will never be free of intervention from powerful beings, because the larger the corporation, the more power it has.

Yes, but those entities gain money/power contingent on providing benefit. If a corporation
becomes too parasitic, it dies. Consumers choose to give their money to corporations to get things they perceive as necessary. I can boycott Macdonalds or Apple, but I can't stop paying taxes. Government is different in scale and operation. Money is taken by threat of force and individuals at each level of society vote for policies that allow them to get the largest slice of the pie while contributing the least to its cost. No one cares about the sustainability of that pie.

Icecream wrote:

Tbh, i can't even begin to think why you think it could even possibly be beneficial to society to give companies free reign to do anything they want...

Companies only gain free reign when they can rely on government which has a monopoly on force to shield them from the consequences of their own irresponsibility.

Icecream wrote:

Because there's NO company that will offer a completely fair trade, (only companies offering slightly less or more unfair trades), it's not like anybody enters into it totally voluntarily, they merely take the best option available to them.

Employers offer just enough that their employees don't quit and employees work just hard enough that they don't get fired.

Icecream wrote:

I'm also still wondering how you think this perfect utopia without a government would end in anything except monopoly by a corporation. i.e. an untouchably powerful thing, whose object is only it's own profit.

It is much much harder to form a monopoly if you are reliant on funding from consumers, and those consumers don't have an entity to which they can outsource any sense of personal responsibility.

Icecream wrote:

We treat the use of oil as a profit making act, when really we're taking something away from the world that can't be put back.
A related idea is the clearance of rainforest for palm oil plantations.

great, so go boycott products dependant on these resources...

Icecream wrote:

Of course, in a utopia free of government, we could organise groups of workers to redistribute through violence. But i kinda prefer the government redistribution method.

Of course you do, that way you get to externalise the cost of your actions to those you are stealing from. It's really very clever.

Icecream wrote:

Because it'd be more like the wild then? We don't want to live in the wild. That's why we formed societies and social contracts in the 1st place.

we just traded the alpha members of the tribe (who can at least be challenged) for government.

Icecream wrote:

Like when he said that everyone in Britain should pay back their individual debts and save money. He knows that that would actually crush the economy

yeah better off hanging onto the debt and living beyond your means on borrowed money...that's real sustainable.

I really think you should educate yourself on basic economic issues. Maybe start by watching some Khanacademy videos on inflation etc

Last edited by nadiatims (2012 January 27, 10:42 pm)

I haven't read all of the posts in this thread, so sorry if I repeat something somebody else has already said.

JimmySeal wrote:

How many copies can anyone reasonably expect to sell when there's unlimited free duplication over the internet?

There has been already free duplication over the internet, and still you can make lots of many out of writing.

What's to stop anyone from (legally) creating a giant Harry Potter fan club that pools about $0.001 per person to buy one copy of the book and distribute it to all of its members on release day?  Do you really think the ~1 year of work that J.K. Rowling put into a volume of that book is worth $30?

That way of thinking is totally outdated. The future is coming and you can't do anything to stop it. Actually, if you embrace it it can be a very bright future indeed.

Just try to change a bit the horror picture you painted:

Instead of a giant Harry Potter fan club working by itself and for its own sake, imagine J.K. Rowling, or anyone in charge of distributing her works, distributing copies online not at $0.001 per person but at $1 per person. Now imagine getting that money from 10 million people around the world, on the first week.

Now set a "Donation" button so people who love JKR's work can share some monetary love with her.

Add other revenues, like merchandising, interviews, etc.

Then she could have millions of dollars without ever having a single copy of her book actually printed.

People defending copyright at its current form are like being angry because people print books by themselves instead of paying you to copy them by hand.

Listen, a mediocre author is more likely to make money selling their book online for a dollar than trying to get it published. The barrier to entry is pretty much zero, and no one will bother pirating it. Seriously who is going to bother setting up torrents or whatever else for a 1 dollar e-book? even if they only sell 5000 copies thats better than 0.

Last edited by nadiatims (2012 January 28, 3:02 am)

nadiatims wrote:

It is much much harder to form a monopoly if you are reliant on funding from consumers, and those consumers don't have an entity to which they can outsource any sense of personal responsibility.

Except that monopolies have formed simply on the funds of consumers. Rockefeller and Microsoft come to mind. You could argue that much of the broadband providers are heavily monopolistic now, but I'm not 100% sure that they were formed completely via consumers and not with the aid of subsidies. Regardless, monopolies can form and they almost always stamp out competition and then create a system where they set the price how they see fit. Sure you don't HAVE to buy most things, but if its something mildly required for day-to-day life, you probably aren't left with much choice BUT to buy it.

Ya I get that Libertarians hate the government and see it as this entity that we don't need. "People and the 'free market' would be better off without it."
Except that without them there wouldn't be anyone there to stop businesses from destroying the environment for instance or introducing poison/toxins into the food. You only need look over at China to see what a system without much government involvement would look like. Shit, not but like 100-110 years ago it was the same thing in the US. Without the presence of some government, you wouldn't have the infrastructure (roads, bridges, water, power) built for you to get around--built AND maintained (extremely poorly).

nadiatims wrote:

Seriously who is going to bother setting up torrents or whatever else for a 1 dollar e-book? even if they only sell 5000 copies thats better than 0.

Plenty of people in fact. I believe there has actually been a few studies looking at the fact that many people are quite anal about spending 99cents on an app on the App Store; nevermind the fact that they then turn around and have no problem with buying a $4 espresso at starbucks.
People who release free music (which you can go to their site and download and pay nothing for it) or free games; still have people that then turn around and upload torrents for it. Some people say this has to do with the issue of "sharing" which some people like to do. I'm not sure why people do it, but regardless, there it is. So if authors released 1 dollar books, they would STILL be pirated. In fact, probably more so.

---------------

Let me take this time to simply say that I think the only TRUE solution to the copyright problem is
1) Re-education of people to try and get them to realize that without financially supporting (read: buying content), that eventually the system will eventually shrink.

2) A change in distribution system. Corporations need to be eliminated from the process. Corps are beholden to their shareholders to constantly push for more profit so in a system where there may not be huge profits to begin with, they need to be eliminated. Otherwise it'll be about either constant exploitation of artists or constant attacks against consumers.

Downloading isn't going away unless something wipes out computers or the government become ultra-1984 and protects corps interests. Its here to stay.

Last edited by vix86 (2012 January 28, 5:40 am)