This may be a rare case in which a narrow ruling (e.g., on an IP scuffle) might just have the ability to affect broader policy and policy debate - on at least two important fronts, to boot. Indeed, this is likely why this particular case made it all the way to a state Supreme Court in the first place - replace "drones" with any other disruptive technology and this action likely never gets the traction to do so.

Obviously, by "Hearts & Minds," I was attempting to evoke the cost of drone-deployment in combat zones, which are many, i.e.,10 civilians killed for each "militant" in these "targeted killings" alone (Brookings - 2009), wherein this sort of murdering of civilians has made the United States' combat efforts so much more difficult and extensive as each of those ten civilians' friends and family are each pushed marginally closer to becoming an "enemy combatant" themselves....

But the "Hearts and Minds" of Americans are at stake too, and not only because the question, "How long until we bring UAVs home for domestic 'policing'?" might very well frighten a broad swath of the U.S. political spectrum.

The hearts and minds of Americans, saturated by war coverage and often passionate in one way or another, may also be incidentally opened to:
- The costs and consequences of current intellectual property law;
- The ubiquity of unscrutinized "black box" software systems running the complicated machinery that runs our lives - runaway Toyatas, meet runaway Drones;
- The extent of the government's ability to quickly circumvent the Codes and laws that hinder individuals and corporations alike.

Of course, TFA says "some sort of face-saving resolution" is most likely, but, one might hope that the passion that Americans' seem to harbor about their war effort might trickle over into other issues that ./ spends much time debating to, again, even if only marginally, raise those issues' profile in Americans' consciousness.

At least, that is, before the next news cycle.

Wonder whether the sage who advocates carrying cats in your car in order to smuggle marijuana (http://nevergetbusted.com/) just might have anything to do with this innovation.

Actual transcript of the seed/stem conversation in mom's basement:

"Spray cat urine in your van? Man that sheet is old school. ::toke:: Decoy cat? Fuck, we need a decoy CAR, man."

"Fuckin' A we do... Let's build a fuckin' POT CAR!"

"Shit man this idea's gonna be gold... Let's write this shit down soon before somebody else steals our idea. We write it down and it's like instantly patented and shit."

"Tru dat. We're gonna be fuckin entrepreneurs!"

"Hell yeah! Let's do this. You talk and I'll write."

"Straight. Wait. What were we talkin' about again?"

"Pens, I think; I forget. Anyway, let's get some nachos and a four gallon soda."

"I love you man."

----

Sadly, or perhaps comfortingly, the above mirrors of the seed moment of most startups, except that in the successful ones, they already have the pen handy.

I am prone to agree with Mr. McDonald, sjames, and while no one has the statistics to arbitrate your claim of "most," I must admit that you lost me somewhere in, "Since most people don't consider those to be reasonable choices, they prefer a bit of social engineering to give people more humane options and to prevent the well off from preying on people who really are stuck financially," as I really couldn't tell whether "most people," "they," "people," referred to the same group or to competing interests.

I'm also not certain what your point is. To the extent that you have a claim that individuals are "free to kill themselves" should they find themselves in chains, I am not one to disagree, but I'm not one to engage in careless acts of reductio, either.

Perhaps I should have been clearer about my main point, that of the existence of _positive externalities_ in the ::ahem:: "virtual sweatshop" realm.

Just as I can, as a rational economic actor, go to the casino to pull slots for a couple hours should I deem the pleasures of the experience to outweigh the -EV of the endeavor, I can conceive of MANY possible transactional spillovers benefiting the end-users of the programs listed.

Certainly you're not suggesting that _real_ sweatshops engender analogous positive externalities to their workers, are you, sjames?

Doubtless any article insinuating a similarity (I'm being friendly - the article asserts an equality) between voluntary acts and "sweatshops" goes -way- beyond hyperbole into the realm of the absurd, and in so doing not only makes a fool out of itself and in so doing tarnishes its publisher's reputation, but, worse, makes light of that to which the term "sweatshop" properly refers.

Are there possibilities for "abuse" within the systems TFA looks at? Sure... The "veteran journalist," e.g., who wrote a requested review, was summarily rejected, and found recourse only in the appeals process to claim his pittance speaks to that aptly (perhaps - more on said veteran later). Needless to say, most rejected would neither suffer the review process nor even consider availing themselves of it in the first place, giving the "employers" free reign to screw the "worker" whenever they'd like. (Possible case-in-point: assume aforementioned review-seeker rejected journalist's article, changed a few words, and just to CYA, resubmitted the "improved" version under a ghost account, which, voila, was accepted. Any system which creates the possibility for such self-dealing, particularly on behalf of only one party, is prima facie dubious).

But sweatshop? Please.

The PC industry has plenty of REAL sweatshops and REAL situations of compulsory labor under unsafe conditions. Let's not let this drivel dilute that fact in our minds.

Had the article _at least_ referred to "transactional spillovers" aka positive externalities, some actual understanding of the parties' motives might have been broached.

The folks utilizing these services might just as well be playing WoW but for pennies instead of status or gold, and at lesser cost to them, to boot. Perhaps it's their distraction. Perhaps the users submit work to projects they find interesting; perhaps they believe there's status in doing so; perhaps it's simply fun. Again, I don't pretend to know.

I don't know the "workers'" motivations, nor do I care to.

All I know is that they're free to leave at any time they want.

And that's a critical distinction seemingly lost on said "reputable journalist..." Perhaps the contractor wasn't wrong in rejecting his first submission after all.