Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Theatres are terminal (Score 1) 277

The difference between theft and copyright infringement is one of immense philosophical complexity.

Deprivation of property is nothing more than deprivation of the labor entailed to obtain that property. You bought a car? That cost you $28,000, which you worked for; but why did you work for $28,000? Because the car salesmen spend time seeking out, talking with, and servicing customers; the cashiers spend time being available to take your money; there are delivery drivers who must bring SIX CARS from far-off to stock them in this enormous 500-car lot; someone makes those cars in the factories; someone makes the steel, the paint, and the plastics; someone mines for the ore, and produces the power required to make those things. These are all human labors, time which must be taken to make the thing.

If someone steals your car, they steal the outcome of nearly $28,000 of labor. It's probably more like $24,000-$26,000, and only that high because the automaker has negotiated for bulk purchase of steel and paint at razor-thin margins ($1 billion of profits at 0.1% vs no profits at your usual 15%, Mr. Carnergie), and the steelmaker has used the promise of an enormous contract to bid down the ore and coal miners on contingency of receiving and maintaining the automaker contract. These people's labors also went into production (organization and operation of production, which means less total human labor than self-organized artisans). You have to fork over all that cash to get a new one, or else insurance has to fork it over (and insurance rates are slightly higher than costs, meaning the cost of basic levels of theft is paid by the insured).

Theft isn't about tangible, physical objects; it's about time.

On the other hand, if you make copies of a work, that deprives no one of tangible property. There is no cost of labor of pressing a DVD for which you have stolen a man's life and livelihood; there is no cost of labor of shipping which you have taken without payment; there is no plastic or metal or ink which a man has made with his time and for which you have failed to pay. Why, then, would it be theft?

Movies are made by the labor of screen writers, actors, special effects artists, directors, producers, marketers, musicians, sound engineers, construction workers, fuel miners, energy producers, iron and steel manufacturers, and so forth. Seemingly-endless human labor time is poured into the production of a small piece of information, a tiny thing which you can reproduce with hardly a fraction of a penny's worth of additional human labor.

It is for this effort they demand compensation.

What justification do you have for depriving these people of compensation for their labor?

The only justification is that your particular action doesn't cost them anything, directly. They only labored at what we price at millions of dollars of wages to produce a thing which can then be copied for a fraction of nothing; you only took that fraction of nothing. They expect, for their work, some form of compensation, and you don't see why you should give them such a thing.

That is the philosophical comparison of theft of property versus theft of intellectual property. That is why it's called "intellectual property": it really takes the labor of a man to make it.

Comment Re:oh if only... (Score 1) 214

It'd be even better if they started covering the amount of economic and environmental damage every Olympic games causes to its host. The hosts think they're going to get a $500 billion tourism industry overnight, and expend tens of billions of dollars (a drop in the bucket for the U.S. Federal government; kind of hefty for a U.S. state; crippling for a city, U.S. or otherwise) ripping out forests, tearing down housing, excising shopping centers, and doing whatever else they need to do to place and supply an enormous stadium. Then it's over, and the stadium rots; tourism doesn't expand; and the heavy cost of hosting the Olympics turns into a long-term burden with no economic upside.

The media doesn't cover this because the Olympics gives them a big ad spot to sell, and destroying the Olympics would cost them. Independent print-only online media with no broadcast sponsor could cover it, and they would get minimal circulation. The only way to hit the public mind is to get CNN, Fox, and NBC.

Comment Re:Amazon is awesome for knockoffs! (Score 1) 345

Reading comprehension, dude. This is a list:

The same thing with Freddie Gray here, the guy who got shot in his car in front of his kid, the black dude with the autistic kid, and everyone else the cops basically walked up to and shot

Do you see the commas? Those are separators in list items. It doesn't say, "Freddie Gray--the guy who got shot in his car"; it says, "(1)Freddie Gray here, (2)the guy who got shot in his car in front of his kid, (3)the black dude with the autistic kid, and (4)everyone else the cops basically walked up to and shot." That's four separate items.

Is English not your primary language? Perhaps you should educate yourself before attempting to interact with people speaking English, as it makes you look ignorant when you come up with some badly-mangled interpretation of what's been said. That goes as well for the word salad you're using in place of proper English, although at least it's readable (the last thing in your post is a declaration that education makes a person appear ignorant).

Comment Re:What have they shown? (Score 1) 66

This is a real concern, as opposed to bullshit "ethical" concerns which are just there for the group circle-jerk.

We live in a world where people define right-and-wrong separate from a group of procedural rules that tell them when to ignore those right-and-wrong things and declare non-wrong things inappropriate while doing non-right things because it would be unethical to not commit some atrocity.

Ethics are why we don't abort a non-sentient blastocyst with no brain, instead demanding it develop into a heavily-neglected child of an abusive welfare family that tried to do the right thing by avoiding creating an animal that would just grow up to be a tormented drug criminal raised in an addiction household.

Ethics are why we don't experiment with *cells* because they happen to be *human* cells, even though such experimentation could save lives and end real suffering (caveat: embryonic stem cell research is, thus far, patently useless and has little potential to cure anything; adult stem cell research has provided a great deal of medical advances).

Are they seriously preparing an argument against cheap food and the alleviation of poverty because it would be unethical to create an animal that, were it not SLAUGHTERED FOR FOOD, might not live a full life? Meat chickens are slaughtered after what, 42 days? Cornish hens after some 21 or 26 or something. The damn things live for 6 years; who cares if the clones are only capable of living for a year and a half? They'll be rolled in the eleven herbs and spices long before then!

Comment Re:Really? (Score 2) 128

"Making money laundering harder" isn't really sensible. All implementations are hubris and rather inconvenient for model-citizens.

In the United States, carrying a certain sum of cash is indication of criminal activity. This is done to combat money laundering and drug trade. They might not be able to charge you with a crime, but they can seize your cash; it's called asset forfeiture. In Alabama, if the police pull you over for a broken tail light, they can demand you display your wallet contents (notably by way of demanding to see your license), and seize any cash if you have more than $100. United States border control looks for "large sums", which might be $2,000 or $5,000, notably if you don't declare that you have a "large sum"; the official definition is $10,000, but smaller sums become large sums by way of fuzzy laws (i.e. if you pull $9,995 from a bank, the bank has to report that you seem to be skirting the mandatory reporting law for transactions over $10,000, even though you didn't actually pull a legally-defined "large sum", because you seem to have specifically avoided pulling a large sum).

Comment Re:Amazon is awesome for knockoffs! (Score 1) 345

Hmmmm, repeatedly insisting that a solution that has failed to work repeatedly over the decades is the answer to all our problems.

Overland transport failed to work for thousands of years. Too expensive. Making steel was laughably labor-intensive--some time in the 1800s, we invented a hot-blast furnace, and suddenly the same wages that paid for 400 tonnes of steel were all that the making of 84,000 tonnes of steel incurred. Once that happened, someone invented a cheap way to roll steel into rails, and we got railroads. Why do you think moving things by truck and train is called "shipping" if ships aren't involved?

Feudalism was the only viable system in extremely-poor economies.

Inflation has eaten our economy alive.

My Universal Social Security is funded by a separate flat income tax on all taxable income. This automatically adjusts for inflation, but not for productivity: it's always the exact same proportion of the per-capita income, and it increases in buying power year over year.

I know how all of this works. I've done back-projections to show when and why the plan I developed doesn't work, when it became viable, and what long-term behaviors it shows over time in real-world conditions using real-world populations and total incomes.

You still seem to ignore the whole "taking $1 trillion of tax burden off the middle- and lower-classes" thing. Are you in favor of taxing the middle classes as much as you can squeeze from them?

Slashdot Top Deals

"All the people are so happy now, their heads are caving in. I'm glad they are a snowman with protective rubber skin" -- They Might Be Giants