The Tyranny of Copyright?

[Jhonus]

same old arguments :wise:

[DigiLusionist]

I hope this guy means that prolonging an artist's copyright BEYOND the normal time period might be a bad thing. But I sure as heck wouldn't say protecting a person's copyright AT ALL is bad.

[elam]

That is an excellent article, but it doesn't suggest or claim that copyright should be abolished. That's a blatant mis-representation. The whole issue is abuse of copyright.

[talos72]

I had read that article a while back. As mentioned, there is a difference between wanting to abolish copyrights versus the rampant abuse of the copyright laws such as the case now with so many companies.

This constant extension of copyrights and the likes of componies wanting to copyright our genetic material are clear example of copyrights gone awry.

At some point in the future, the well of public domain will dry up. That would not be a good thing. The fact that Disney built its empire through using public domain material (all the original fairtales which made Disney's cartoons so famous), and the fact that through lame Mickey Mouse laws Disney wants to constantly extend copyrights speaks volumes in hypocracy.

[BoydLake]

I agree with the article. Copyright is essential to both corporations and individuals involved with creatiing intellectual property.

Artists must be able to retain control over creative property or incentive to create will stop. It's also no different for software developers. Intellectual property rights are worth protecting...If you don't protect IP and copyrights.....our jobs go away... plain and simple.

It's easy to look at all corporations as "evil", but that's not really fair. Most of us get paid by corporation money. Corporations are also as different in their ethics as the people working in them. Saying corporations have any less rights than individuals to hold creative copyrights (simply because they are corporations) is kind of dumb. :hmm:

[CourtJester]

As long as the issue remains fixated on "copyright" I swear it can NEVER be resolved.

The issue at stake is, has always been, and will always be the right of the author over the work he creates. That means that the author has the right to set terms of use -- ANY terms at all -- that he wishes (just as we are free to accept or reject -- but not DICTATE -- those terms). This right is part of the basic principle of freedom of association, i.e. to relate to others on one's own terms.

Viewed that way, it becomes clear that copyright is just one of any number of terms of use the author may set for the use of his work. Our current law is focussed on copyright, because that is the primary term of use underlying the classic profit-taking model, per-copy remuneration (PCR).

Well, PCR is now obsolete, because digital technology has rendered the cost of duplication and distribution -- the biggest cost of business in the PCR model -- to be effectively nil. The challenge is to figure out a new way to profit from one's work, that EXPLOITS the new technology -- turn the "problem" into an opportunity. The way to do this, is for the owners of work to alter the terms of use (as opposed to surrendering the right to set them!)

Waiving copyright is a part of that. It is in this way that copyright is obsolete, even though it still remains a valid right for the author to invoke if he sees fit. Think about it, there are lots of terms an author can set which are completely unenforceable (if not inane), such as only reading a certain book on Mondays and Thursdays, or using only CRT monitors to play this computer game, or whatever... copyright may soon become one of these.

As you can see, when construed in terms of the *essential* issue at stake -- author's right -- there doesn't need to be much change (if any) in the basic laws. There is nothing in the current law that stops any creator of work from permitting widespread "open-source"-style distribution of his work. Copyright is not dictated by the law, it is only protected. But because the whole debate is frozen in terms of a particular term of use instead of the basic principle at stake, both of the sides in the fight are horribly WRONG.

On the one side are (in the extreme form) the crypto-Marxist looters, who attack author's rights using various fabrications, from "information wants to be free" to the usual demonization of private corporations (because they "screw" the real authors etc. etc.) On the other, you have the record and movie companies who are all fighting not for the right of the author per se, but to preserve the old PCR profit-model -- and thereby stave off their own obsolescence -- by means of expensive and interfering DRM technology and strict copyright terms, trampling the rights of technology manufacturers and consumers in the process.

It sure looks like a good demonstration of how the simplest epistemological error -- the failure to define by essentials -- can have huge, destructive consequences.

Fortunately, so long as the right of the author still exists, the authors themselves retain the ultimate power to waive copyright if they see fit to do so, and creativity will not die so long as that remains true. It is the preservation of the author's right -- not copyright specifically -- which is IMO the "right" side to take in this debate.

[jinchoung]

all copyrights should EXPIRE eventually - sooner better than later.

as was brought up, contributing to the public domain is a very important concept and it has been articulated well by the likes of larry lessig.

i believe the original intent of copyrights is to provide a method for the content creator to get fairly compensated for his work. but this compensation should not extend into perpetuity!

the primary concept of intellectual property is not or SHOULD NOT be about getting paid. like monopoly laws, the emphasis should be on competition, INNOVATION and PUBLIC GOOD.

everybody stands on the shoulders of others. nothing comes ex-nihilo. we owe a debt to those who came before and can pay it back by eventually giving freely to those who come after.

and i say all this as a content creator.

metallica sux. :)

jin

[BoydLake]

Originally posted by jinchoung
all copyrights should EXPIRE eventually - sooner better than later.

as was brought up, contributing to the public domain is a very important concept and it has been articulated well by the likes of larry lessig.

Contributing to public good is fine as long as it is not forced or mandatory. There's yet to be presented a clear rational reason why copyright should expire. If you build a house....should you have to give it up to the state after 10 years? That's plain robbery. So is forcing a content creator to give up copyright after some arbitrary period of time so that the public domain can get their mitts on free stuff.

i believe the original intent of copyrights is to provide a method for the content creator to get fairly compensated for his work. but this compensation should not extend into perpetuity!
So who is to judge what's "fair" compensation? I would argue that as long as there is demand for the content, the creator deserves compensation. And again...why shouldn't the copyright extend into perpetuity especially when there's still a demand for the content?


the primary concept of intellectual property is not or SHOULD NOT be about getting paid. like monopoly laws, the emphasis should be on competition, INNOVATION and PUBLIC GOOD.

What? How does retaining copyright, and being paid for use of content, inhibit competition and innovation? Just because I retain copyright or patent on say a better moustrap, doesn't mean someone else can't also come up with their own version. If it's truly as good as my mousetrap or better, then they will compete. It's the financial incentive that copyright creates that enables innovation and competition. The by-product of all this are products people want at prices they can afford...and a higher quality of life that serves the public good.

The business of creating intellectual property is all about getting paid by providing a product people want and will pay for. There is no right to demand others to give away their property just because the public wants it for free..... no matter how much they've already made. If people still want it, the creators deserve compensation for it. Anything else is just robbery of those who create and that will kill competition, innovation and public good faster than anything.

everybody stands on the shoulders of others. nothing comes ex-nihilo. we owe a debt to those who came before and can pay it back by eventually giving freely to those who come after.

I've heard this before and it always sounds like an excuse given by those who don't want to put in the work and investment it takes to compete, innovate, and create. I agree there is value in sharing, but much of that goes on already without stripping copyrights from content creators. It should also never be forced. Blur Studio for example has provided free plugins for Max for years which has well served the Max community. I'm not sure what benefits other than good will they receive from it, but I would never want them required to give their stuff away for free.

[jinchoung]

lawrence lessig at stanford university probably has the clearest arguments for why the public domain and the expiration of copyrights is an important consideration.

the best that i could do is butcher the regurgitation of it.

but in terms of practical everyday life, one excruciatingly crucial aspect of copyrights being FORCED TO EXPIRE that benefits mankind tremendously is that of PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.

do you have any idea what a boon it is to have these drug patents expire and then have the ability to sell cheap generics?

and drug companies are a bloodthirsty lot for their profits and bottom line - AND YET they seemed to have devised a calculation where they can determine at what point they have been FAIRLY COMPENSATED.

it's not just laziness. nothing that you know came from nowhere. somebody or something gave you the content of what you know or the building blocks upon which you've built. MAKING THINGS FREE to insure that that continues to happen is a worthy goal.

further, disney is a good example of a benefactor of public domain and yet REFUSING TO RETURN THE FAVOR.

where would disney be if hans christian andersen's work never lapsed into public domain?

see? again, clearcut evidence of the enforced sharing of content - again evidenced in the bloodthirstiest examples of capitalism.

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

tangentially related:

i play civilization and that game intimated to me that economic systems exist not just as differences but perhaps as points along an evolutionary timeline.

so when i think of capitalism, i keep thinking:

WHAT'S NEXT?

and with the proliferation of information that is the internet along with the instant replicability of content as more and more content becomes the aether of digital, i think we're gonna find out sooner than later that such ideas as GNU and open source may really be onto a revolution - a revolution that embraces the new reality instead of trying to travel back in time.

jin

p.s. i think your notion of sharing relies on an image of a humanity that is reasonably generous.

my notion of ENFORCING SHARING ASSUMES individuals and corporations without a limit to greed and self interest.

[PixelVampire]

Boyd Lake-

I Totally agree with you... 100%

[Stahlberg]

where would disney be if hans christian andersen's work never lapsed into public domain?

They would have had to negotiate with his estate and then cough up the spondoolies for the rights, that's all. What's wrong with that?

You assume 'unlimited greed'. I believe that only holds for certain individuals. You can't seriously say all human beings are infinitely greedy. Would Bill Gates give away any money at all if he was infinitely greedy? When greed takes over, you get self-destruction, like what happened to Enron. This is not what capitalism is all about - most companies never self-destruct.

[jinchoung]

bill gates, 'philanthropists' and major corporations give money away because they get a tax break. very little of society's generousity is driven by actual altruism.

enron self destructed because they were idiots. i have very little doubt that there are plenty of corporations that are no less virtuous but simply don't get caught either by skill, luck or moderation. would i come across as being a pessimist if i said that everybody's a goddamn crook? :)

in america, corporations are OBLIGATED BY LAW to be 'infinitely greedy' (tm). morality and any and all of its sticky implications SIMPLY DO NOT APPLY to these entities. meaning that the ONLY thing that matters is making money - the bottom line. this is why if corporations had their way, nothing would EVER EVER EVER fall into public domain. i mean from their point of view, why would they ever?!

as for where disney would be:

if hans christian andersen as well as the people who originally wrote snow white, cinderella, etc etc etc negotiated their content as aggressively as disney does, disney would never ever have entered into such a deal... hell, they have a problem coming to terms with PIXAR! you think hans christian andersen or the other creators whose works are world famous many times over would cut disney a better deal than pixar?

as it stands, disney is a dead sea of sorts where lots of material filters in and nothing filters out. kinda unfair dontcha think?

anyhoo, i do think it's fascinating that most of you guys feel so strongly against a mandatory contribution into public domain as well as the notion of strict and tight regulations for the duration of patents/copyrights.

especially since there are such immediate ramifications like prescription drugs.

i guess i can see the protectionist stance as content creators (and indeed i am just such a content creator myself) but i guess i always thought artists in general (and propellerhead artists in particular) as being more egalitarian, gnu, open source and less commerce driven. anyway, an enlightening discussion.

jin

[PixelVampire]

"egalitarian, gnu, open source and less commerce driven."

Does not pay the bills :D
I am all for capitalism. There is no alternative. Capitalism is the only system that gels with human nature.
I am fed up of reading graffiti that says "capitalism kills" what does communism do then???? Lenin, Stalin NO THANK YOU!!
These people should give real world solutions rather than just blabing silly things that are in fashion.

[JohnD]

Couldn't agree more PixelVamp.
"Scheme linked to redistribution of income." Stinks of "socialism"" in my opinion. And besides, it's an article in the N.Y. Times. Need I say more?


"i guess i can see the protectionist stance as content creators (and indeed i am just such a content creator myself) but i guess i always thought artists in general (and propellerhead artists in particular) as being more egalitarian, gnu, open source and less commerce driven. anyway, an enlightening discussion."

Isn't that what liberals call a "stereotype?" For shame.
:p

[jinchoung]

nobody's screaming 'yay lenin, stalin, mao!'

i agree capitalism works.

i also agree that it's the one that gels with human nature and reality. and the aspects of human nature that it gels with is self interest. it may sound like something coming from the mouth of a bleeding heart liberal as an attack but "GREED" really is good under this system.

and other systems don't work because they rely on ideals and virtues that society simply can't maintain on a wide and constant scale.

but capitalism may not be the END OF THE LINE either. if monarchism, feudalism, communism and socialism are baby steps to capitalism, what's NEXT on the evolutionary ladder? i suspect there IS A NEXT and i'm looking forward to it.

cuz capitalism has its problems too don't you agree?

more and more, it seems to me that capitalism is actually an ENEMY of democracy. without some serious campaign finance reform, everyone may have a say but those with the most bucks have the loudest voice? doesn't sound right to me.

and i bring up the point again about prescription drugs. the fact that their patents are legally required to expire benefits humanity and further, if the drug companies had their way, such expiration would NEVER occur.

and the drug companies are an example of expiration of patents existing in a sustainable system. see? it's viable.

but i'm not even attacking capitalism per-se.

fine, let capitalism and the initiative it creates drive innovation and ambition. i'm not arguing against that.

but let capitalism also be regulated in such a way so that the benefits spread as far and wide as possible.

copyrights and patents expire.

as for 'paying the bills'... i agree too that that's an important concern.... but is it really the end all be all of life? is it really?

jin

[Pixelmaestro]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/02/05/MNG5I4PF271.DTL


"Bikram Choudhury, the Beverly Hills yoga master to the lithe and sweaty masses, swept into San Francisco on Wednesday for mediation of an intellectual property lawsuit that has more twists and turns than his 26 postures, done twice each in a room heated to over 105 degrees.

Choudhury, America's best known and most controversial yogi, opened one of his first yoga schools in San Francisco in 1973 and now boasts 900 studios worldwide. He copyrighted, trademarked and franchised his poses, breathing techniques and dialogue, creating the first chain of its kind.

He also hired lawyers who set loose a flurry of cease-and-desist letters warning yoga teachers in the Bay Area and beyond not to teach his yoga or anything "derivative" if they haven't graduated from his $5,000-per-person training program and are not paying a studio franchise fee. His letters threaten a penalty of $150,000 per infringement."

[JohnD]

"more and more, it seems to me that capitalism is actually an ENEMY of democracy"

Well, if I'm not mistaken, democracy created capitalism.

"as for 'paying the bills'... i agree too that that's an important concern.... but is it really the end all be all of life? is it really?"

Well...no...just about 90% of it unfortunately...that is of course if u enjoy having a roof over your head, clothes on your back, food in your stomach, and this internet connection to post on CGTalk.:thumbsup:

[jinchoung]

"Well, if I'm not mistaken, democracy created capitalism."

it doesn't address my point. yah, it helped give birth to it but then can't the father be underminded by the son? happens all the time.

"Well...no...just about 90% of it unfortunately...that is of course if u enjoy having a roof over your head, clothes on your back, food in your stomach, and this internet connection to post on CGTalk."

i didn't mean it quite so literally. but if it's any consolation, i don't think eisner, disney or the drug companies have trouble paying their electric bill.

the yoga article brings up another point that is perhaps more relevant to the topic: nuts trying to patent everything under the sun. and this is a big deal in technology where patent lawyers and judges aren't probably hip enough to discern valid claims versus ludicrous ones.

jin

p.s. oh, you seem to need this to feel whole so: :thumbsup:

[wuensch]

I doubt that democracy created capitalism...
as far as i know the biggest capitalist of them all,
Jacob Fugger (believe it or not, he practically owned the known world in renaissance europe) lived happily in a monarchistic world. And kings borrowed his money.
As one said---capitalism is true to the human nature---
democracy is not necessarily.
When the old greek invented democracy they had something totally different in mind, then what we call democracy nowadays.
Was more like a dictatorship of the wise.
Hell, most democracies existing on this planet dont even deserve the name democracy today--- where does the people really rule? (it sure did not under communism)

Capitalism is friend with everybody: Even dictators love it (and capitalism loves dictators---such an efficient decision pipeline--;-)

Olli,.

[wuensch]

btw.
I think protection of authors right are essential---
I am doubtful if lawyers are the ones who should take care of it, though.

I think the whole Patent and protection crazyness is very much the fault of too many lawyers trying to earn a living---
Olli

[BoydLake]

Originally posted by jinchoung
...but in terms of practical everyday life, one excruciatingly crucial aspect of copyrights being FORCED TO EXPIRE that benefits mankind tremendously is that of PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.

do you have any idea what a boon it is to have these drug patents expire and then have the ability to sell cheap generics?

and drug companies are a bloodthirsty lot for their profits and bottom line - AND YET they seemed to have devised a calculation where they can determine at what point they have been FAIRLY COMPENSATED.
There's no doubt in my mind that limiting the compensation of drug companies also assures that some drugs may never be created or brought to market. This is simply because drug companies' ability to re-coup the investments required to create new and better drugs has been curtailed arbitrarily to the point that it's no longer worth it to develop some drugs.

Prescription drugs, like media, are a mass market product, which means that to make money, you need products that can sell millions of units to make any money at all. It can take years for some products to sell enough to even break even.

Forcing producers who have invested millions in research so the public can have watered-down mediocre knock-off drugs artificially inflates supply and forces cheaper prices in the short term. But doing that means the quality of drugs goes way down as the quantity of useful drugs we'll never have goes up because doing the research for them isn't worth it.

it's not just laziness. nothing that you know came from nowhere. somebody or something gave you the content of what you know or the building blocks upon which you've built. MAKING THINGS FREE to insure that that continues to happen is a worthy goal.
Greater financial incentive to create assures there will be newer, better building blocks with which to build. Taking away incentive means fewer, lower quality blocks. An economic model without individual incentives cannot exist in perpetuity and maintain quality of product. It's been tried over and over and failed over and over.

As far as copyright law goes, there is plenty of opportunity for "giving something back to the community" through the educational fair use clauses which allow for freely copying media and content to educate. Many professional artists I know also freely teach and pass on what they know without having to be forced. They even leave the companies where they learn and work at others where they pass on what they know. Sharing happens all the time this way.

Studios share technologies as well, like for example Naughty Dog and Insomniac. They do it for their own reasons. Some are probably what you'd call self serving.

further, disney is a good example of a benefactor of public domain and yet REFUSING TO RETURN THE FAVOR.

Criticize Disney's methods if you will, but because they have been so successful with creating profitable content, there are now hundreds of animation studios. I call that a good thing and don't feel like they have hoarded anything from consumers or the animation community.
where would disney be if hans christian andersen's work never lapsed into public domain?

see? again, clearcut evidence of the enforced sharing of content - again evidenced in the bloodthirstiest examples of capitalism.
Writers like Hans Christian Andersen write and get paid for their work all the time by companies like Disney. Had he been able to retain his rights to his stories, Disney would have gladly paid Mr. Andersen or his estate for the rights to make films based on those stories.

Disney didn't pick Snow White because the material was free and in the public domain... he chose it because it was a story that he and the mass market loved. That's where the value was, not that the content was free.

By the same token, the cost of production is not what makes a media product valuable either. Simply because it's cheaper to replicate and share media on the internet doesn't mean the value of a product proportionally goes down. What does give it value is simple supply and demand.
i play civilization and that game intimated to me that economic systems exist not just as differences but perhaps as points along an evolutionary timeline.

so when i think of capitalism, i keep thinking:

WHAT'S NEXT?

and with the proliferation of information that is the internet along with the instant replicability of content as more and more content becomes the aether of digital, i think we're gonna find out sooner than later that such ideas as GNU and open source may really be onto a revolution - a revolution that embraces the new reality instead of trying to travel back in time.
If you were proposing anything new then I'd tend to buy your assertion a little more I suppose. But I don't see anything new in your argument or arguments from the "copy-left" or open source advocates. But rather, they are very old socialist ideals that proponents of such thought always try to re-package as "progressive "and "ethically superior" in some way or another.

Simply because the internet helps information be distributed and replicated much more efficiently than before does not suggest any real need to re-think capitalist economics at all, but rather suggests new opportunities for smart capitalists to expand their markets and make their products useful to more people.... which means more consumers get things they want at prices they can afford. What's wrong with that?
p.s. i think your notion of sharing relies on an image of a humanity that is reasonably generous.

my notion of ENFORCING SHARING ASSUMES individuals and corporations without a limit to greed and self interest.
My hope is that there's no limit to capitalist incentive, or "greediness" as you call it. It's this insatiable motivation that drives the creation of the best products that meet the demands of the most consumers and creates the most jobs and lifts the living standards of more people than anything else ever will.

Honest, free market capitalism takes nothing from no-one. Stealing property from those who have bought, built and created it is what I'd call self-serving and bloodthirsty.

:)

[JohnD]

Originally posted by jinchoung
"Well, if I'm not mistaken, democracy created capitalism."

it doesn't address my point. yah, it helped give birth to it but then can't the father be underminded by the son? happens all the time.

"Well...no...just about 90% of it unfortunately...that is of course if u enjoy having a roof over your head, clothes on your back, food in your stomach, and this internet connection to post on CGTalk."

i didn't mean it quite so literally. but if it's any consolation, i don't think eisner, disney or the drug companies have trouble paying their electric bill.

the yoga article brings up another point that is perhaps more relevant to the topic: nuts trying to patent everything under the sun. and this is a big deal in technology where patent lawyers and judges aren't probably hip enough to discern valid claims versus ludicrous ones.

jin

p.s. oh, you seem to need this to feel whole so: :thumbsup:

It's just a thumbs up icon dude. That's about it.

[jinchoung]

therein we encounter a a larger and fundamental worldview difference:

i've heard this describe the difference between democrat and republican and i think it's relevant here:

- one group believes that the people have to be protected from money.

- the other group believes that money needs to be protected from the people.

and i guess what side of the line you fall in, in regards to that dilemma determines how you feel about the rest of this stuff.

i think it's pretty clear that i fall into the people needs protection against money camp.

i think the gungho capitalism argument requires a belief in meritorcracy and that people get what they deserve.

my pov does not believe that AT ALL. life is a crap shoot. the fact that i got born in a first world nation in an area and with parents that facilitated a good education was a complete accident. also a crapshoot was what race i was born as, my level of attractiveness and my the level of my intelligence. if i had been born in a radically different situation and guise, i would have a radically worse life, no matter how hard i struggled and it will have not been due to any kind of justice or meritocracy.

my idea of social justice tries to mitigate the crapshoot element. the filthy rich by and large aren't filthy rich because they deserve it. and the desperately destitute aren't that way because of any just deserts either.

and so, i believe in mitigation. and evidently MIT does as well as they've released their entire curriculum free on the internet. and by such things i am heartened.

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

but that's as far as we can get then. you state your position, i state mine. and we agree to disagree.

people have been arguing this for longer than i've been around and they will continue to do so longer than i will be on this earth. you're not going to change my mind and i'm not gonna change yours.

but the historical trend seems to be less class differences within our society and i think this trend will accelerate as we head into the future... and hopefully the whole world will benefit in the same way.

jin

[dvornik]

Healthy capitalism needs competition. Everyone finds his way to make money to the best of his ability and all of that... When some small omnipowerful group is shoving it's interests down everybody else's throats it's more like a totalitarian regime. That's what groups like RIAA are doing.

There are different approaches to copyrights that wouldn't antagonise 90% of the society and still allow everyone to make money.

[Stahlberg]

Boyd Lake, I agree totally.

jinchoung, God knows there are plenty people treated unfairly by fate in this world. There are also people treated very well by fate, who really didn't deserve it. Like some wife-beating dumb jerk who wins 50 million in a lottery, leaves his family and spends it all in 2 years... or the kid of a billionair who turns to drugs and crime... etc etc

But most 'self-made' men and women are very deserving of their wealth. They had a vision, they stuck to their goals even through the hard times, they got up earlier, they worked nights, they worked Sundays, they worked harder and longer and smarter and more disciplined than 99.999% of the rest of the population. When everybody else would have given up and gone fishing, they continued a little further. And then you hear from the guys who went fishing instead: "Those greedy bastard, there ought to be a law..."

Sure, everybody can't be over-achievers... that would be a strange world. But the sad truth is, there are so few of this kind of people. Let me kill a myth: there IS room at the top. Lots of it. It's just that hardly anyone's interested in doing the work it takes to get there.

You take away any part of what such people have managed to gain, you dilute their rewards... and you put a brake on innovation and development. Take all of it away, you kill all development.
These guys are the only reason we're space travelers, and not extinct.

[dvornik]

I don't think anyone here tries to argue that achievement shouldn't be rewarded. It should.

But as far as copyrights go - not the way it's been done for the last 50 years. There's a distribution revolution going on around you whether you like it or not. You can't just keep standing there pissing against the wind.

[PixelVampire]

"You can't just keep standing there pissing against the wind."

You can block the wind out though by going inside and using a toilet :-)

Stahlberg "Let me kill a myth: there IS room at the top. Lots of it. It's just that hardly anyone's interested in doing the work it takes to get there. "

That is so motivating and completely true Stahlberg!!!! I am gonna print it and stick it on top of my computer and aim high.

Boyd Lake - Completely VALID points.

Yes life is unfair. Where you are born and in which family is all freak of nature. I live in the west, I spent my childhood in a third world country. I saw lot of poverty even though I was well off. These are the unfortunate realities of life. Nature is EVIL. Humans (99%) are greedy by nature it CANNOT be changed PERIOD.
Look around you everyone is out for themselves. It's called self-preservation.

[jinchoung]

hey pixel vampire,

actually, i agree with that last paragraph almost completely and i'm surprised that we agree on that much.

i guess where we differ then is i think humanity does and should FIGHT NATURE.

so if we agree that nature is unfair and arbitrary, we can be better than that.

we don't subscribe to the survival of the fittest. we don't give our weakest over to be dog food. we don't cut off our crippled. we create shelter against the cold and medicine against sickness and mortality.

we should fight against nature's inherent unfairness too. social justice - i think it's a worthwhile notion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

stahlberg,

NOBODY is self made.

sure, some people struggle up from unfavorable ENVIRONMENTS. but they still had other advantages - what color they were born, their intelligence level, their charisma, their natural genetic fortitude, etc.

to a large extent, one's lot in life has nothing to do with EARNING it.

but even beyond that, i simply don't buy the 'self made man stories'... speaking of myths, most of it seems too much like a p.r. engineered myth to me. very much like the myth of the 'overnight success'. it's a form of urban legend i think and i can imagine a great deal of cronyism, neppotism and a score of other -isms involved with the 'pulling up of the bootstraps'.

it's a nice poster child of the american dream and the virtues of capitalism but i think it is by and large a fairy tale.

and dvornik touches on how capitalism can be an enemy of democracy - again, that those with the most money have the greatest voice and that there is a capitalistic version of 'might makes right'.

jin

[dvornik]

Wrong post, sorry

[Stahlberg]

NOBODY is self made.

It's a figure of speech, man. I mean they worked focused, and damn hard, even though they didn't have to. Like Will Smith said: "While the other guy was sleeping, I was working... while the other guy was eating, I was working... while the other guy was making love... well, I was making love too, but I was doin' it damn hard."

Saying their struggle to success is a fairytale is obviously BS and can easily be proven, but I won't bother. Just do some searches on the subject. Saying it's all due to genetics and situation is insulting, demeaning and belittling the life's work of people we should look up to. It's a copout, something that a person who just doesn't want to go through what they did would say to himself to feel better about it. I'm not saying you are that person; I'm saying such a person reading your comment might take it as an excuse not to even try.

Find a succesful business owner and tell him/her what you just wrote, tell them they're where they're at today because of genetics or the country or family they were born in, not because of hard work. See what they have to say about it.
There are black and hispanic and chinese and indian etc millionaires in every 'first world' country. There are also millionaires of all colors in third world countries. You're right about one thing though: talent, IQ and training has a lot to do with it - you'll rarely see a stupid, lazy and incompetent "self-made" rich man. Do you think that's unfair? Would you like to see the stupid, lazy, and incompetent make just as much money as those who work hard and focused their whole lives?

[wuensch]

Stahlberg, I agree with your viewpoint, I am pretty sure that the difference between a successful and an unsuccessful individual with the same background is nothing but hard work and dedication--
however, Pixelvampires viewpoint has a lot of trouth to it:
no one is self made.
you are always product of your environment.
You can be as intelligent as you want, if you had no money and no one tought you to read (english) and gave you access to a computer your choice of career would be severely limited---
and now imagine that more than 80 % of worldpopulation cannot read---
some of them because they dont want (analphabetism in 1st world countries) but most because they were not tought.

I consider the unequal distribution of educational possibilities on this planet as one of the biggest wastes of humankind:
We (as species) are letting 90% of the possible harvest of brainpower go rott without even trying---

Who wants to argue that the single factor that makes the difference for humankind is its intelligence and what they can do with it.
Otherwise all we would be is dinner for carnivores .
And working hard to be not eaten

Olli:beer:

[elam]

You guys are using a lot of unfounded generalizations. I work in a small business environment, and an overwhelming majority of the other sbo's I work with aren't rich or well off. They're not particularly brilliant either. But they've worked hard and managed to make themselves self-sufficient. Which is the whole reason they went into business for themselves in the first place. And a lot of them are immigrants, 1st or 2nd generation, with no formal education. A healthy capatalistic environment makes that possible. Regualtion kills that environmnent.

Why should they or anyone else be penalized for how much money they make? If it's immoral to have wealth concentrated to a select few, it's equally immoral to force that wealth to be re-distributed. The value come is choosing to do the 'right' thing. Choices require thought.

By the way, the original term of copyright was 14 years plus an option for another 14. Todays is life of the author plus 70 years. A huge difference. I would put my trust in the Founding Fathers who, I think, put a lot more thought into these things than the cheesy, fake, money driven politicians of today.

[Stahlberg]

Olli of course you're right, not being taught to read is a very unfair handicap, not arguing that. I wish everyone could have a level playing field. But just because they can't isn't a reason to minimize the accomplishments of other people.

Still... a destitute illiterate can rise above his/her situation, it just takes even more than for us lucky few. It's rarer, but it does happen. I hope no one would call such a person a crook or 'infinitely greedy'. :)

[wuensch]

Steven,
I you are right , of course: it is never correct to put down the hard work of others.
Elam:
Money is re-distributed and taken away by the government all the time, they call it taxes---

I feel disrespected any time I have to pay the way-too -much taxes, but on the other hand, a lot of things have to be paid for by the government, right?
I dont see what this has to do with a "healthy capitalism"---
Its good that your fellow business collegues are making a living, but their life is regulated in more than one way:
you have to follow a lot of rules in any society, be it how you earn your money or how you are allowed to drive---
I agree that it is bad to over-regulate life and business, but that does not mean that no regulation at all is a good thing---
which, btw. is what globalization is causing:
if you are a big enough corporation, national laws dont apply any more as the world as it is always has a place where your money makes the law.


In my opinion the world does not need more control, but control on another scale--- a worldwide scale.
The problems of the future will not be national problems.
So the solution can never be national.

As successful businessman often like to say:
"Think big!"


best example are the new diseases popping up right now in Asia and spreading.




And the founding fathers did not have the faintest idea how far technology would go some day, nor what an industry would build up on entertainment or engeneering.
They could only make rules for their time.

14 years--- that would be less than it takes to thoroughly test a new bio-engeneering technologie-- and then the patent runs out--so its either dont test it, just put it on the market or never even bother because you will not have results in time---- neither a good perspective--



Olli

[JohnD]

Originally posted by jinchoung
hey pixel vampire,

actually, i agree with that last paragraph almost completely and i'm surprised that we agree on that much.

i guess where we differ then is i think humanity does and should FIGHT NATURE.

so if we agree that nature is unfair and arbitrary, we can be better than that.

we don't subscribe to the survival of the fittest. we don't give our weakest over to be dog food. we don't cut off our crippled. we create shelter against the cold and medicine against sickness and mortality.

we should fight against nature's inherent unfairness too. social justice - i think it's a worthwhile notion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

stahlberg,

NOBODY is self made.

sure, some people struggle up from unfavorable ENVIRONMENTS. but they still had other advantages - what color they were born, their intelligence level, their charisma, their natural genetic fortitude, etc.

to a large extent, one's lot in life has nothing to do with EARNING it.

but even beyond that, i simply don't buy the 'self made man stories'... speaking of myths, most of it seems too much like a p.r. engineered myth to me. very much like the myth of the 'overnight success'. it's a form of urban legend i think and i can imagine a great deal of cronyism, neppotism and a score of other -isms involved with the 'pulling up of the bootstraps'.

it's a nice poster child of the american dream and the virtues of capitalism but i think it is by and large a fairy tale.

and dvornik touches on how capitalism can be an enemy of democracy - again, that those with the most money have the greatest voice and that there is a capitalistic version of 'might makes right'.

jin

It's unfortunate that so many people left of center seem to have this "Glass if half empty" out look on life. As far as one's lot in life has nothing to do with earning it, I'm sorry, but I'm sure that is an offensive statement to alot of people. First person that pops into my head that would be made to totally feel like garbage if someone said that to him would be my own dad. He grew up in a crap family, went to Vietnam, and has worked in a job for 30 years that he totally hates, but he did it so he could give his family a good life and has earned everything he has. He was born with every friggin' disadvantage you can think of, but through hard work and determination turned it around and came out successful. So I'm sorry, but your "Lot in life, nothing to do with earning it" statement is a big load.

[elam]

14 years--- that would be less than it takes to thoroughly test a new bio-engeneering technologie-- and then the patent runs out--so its either dont test it, just put it on the market or never even bother because you will not have results in time---- neither a good perspective--

Newsflash Olli: Copyright and Patents aren't the same thing. Drug and 'bio-engeneering' companies use patents to develop their products, not copyright. No one ever applied for a copyright on Viagra(Except for the name, of course).
Aother newsflash: The term of patents in the U.S is 20 years. So your development theory is wrong. Educate yourself, plz. (http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/whatis.htm)

And, being an American, I am well of aware of taxes. A lot of government beauracracy is wasteful and does nothing to correct the problems it was designed to do. It has everything to do with capitalism. Business are taxed every which way, which lessens the chances for innovation. Can't innovate if your filling out papers. Regulation and taxes are pretty much the same thing. They cost you money. Here's proof (http://www.econopundit.com/archive/2004_02_01_econopundit_archive.html#107574919596293228)

Being German and based on your ignorant comments, I doubt you know much about the Founding Fathers. You might want to if your going to comment on them. For the lazy. (http://www.loc.gov/)

[RobertoOrtiz]

Guys turn down the rethoric a bit or Ill close the thread.

-R

[wuensch]

Ok, I have mistaken copyright and patents BUT: patentscan be renewed.
They dont necessarily run out after 20 years.
As for the founding fathers:
You probably studied them in detail, but we both know that they are long dead, right?
Olli

[wuensch]

btw, I browsed the link you gave, very nice site, easy to find information. like it.
I did in no way want to put down the importance of your "founding fathers", but you have to admit that entering founding and copy and right does not deliver a single hit.
I doubt that the copyright was top on their priority list.
Olli

[elam]

but we both know that they are long dead, right?

They're dead, but there reasoning is sound. You're right. Copyright wasn't a priority. So they gave a lot of powers to the Congress to decide its terms and limitations. But, no question, that's being abused.

You can't renew a patent. They can be extended under special circumstances, but that is unusual. But even patents are being abused, primarily due to lack of technically qualified patent reviewers or the resources to look up prior art.

[wuensch]

Ok, I have to admit that I got it really mixed up then---
it surprises me that the patents run out so "fast" compared to the copyrights---
but i know that patents are being abused big time, especially the so called trivial patents (like the Amazon.com -one-click-order)
but in the end its not alone the fault of the companies filing these patents but of the authorities giving patents on trivialities--
just not right, a patent should honor an exceptional creation/innovation (ok--- not creation, that would fall under copyright).
Thanks for pointing out the differences (really) .
Olli

[jinchoung]

my my my,

we ARE covering a lot of topics in this thread. for most people who are insulted by my world view, we have encountered - bum bum buuuuuum:

FREE WILL VS. DETERMINISM! FIGHT!

i am CERTAIN, there would be many people insulted by this view and consider it a copout, but that doesn't make it false in and of itself.

not only traits like intelligence or charisma or creative thought but where do you guys think the ability to knuckle down and work, where do you think drive, where do you think constitution and determination come from? or why such effort to one person is subjectively joy (if not outright necessity) while to another the experience is very different.

i would argue that those things by and large come from: environment and genetics. or put it another way NATURE and NURTURE.

human beings like to think that they are so very different from the rest of the animal kingdom but they are pretty predictable if you can observe all the 'input connections'.

i wouldn't say that free will doesn't come into the equation AT ALL... but i seriously question the amount of success of any individual owes a huge part to it.

that's why when most really successful people are interviewed, most of them feel 'blessed and gratitude' or that 'luck' had a large part in it. it's because forces beyond their conscious volition has been and have always been involved in their lives.

jin

p.s. and since we have segued into the realm of philosophy, we should try to keep 'who would be insulted by what' arguments out of it. cuz yeah, people may be insulted but as i said, it doesn't address the truth or falsity of anything.

[Stahlberg]

So if it's all predetermined, is it logical to use negative value-judgments, like we're all "crooks" and "infinitely greedy", to describe certain activities you don't approve of? So let's remove all authors right's then. Those greedy crooks will still keep on working their asses off, even for no reward.

And about what successful people say when interviewed publically; most of them are highly intelligent, and so they're being more humble than they might be in private. Yes they're grateful, because they've seen how rare is their success.

[jinchoung]

value judgments can and do still exist in the presence of determinism. whether we are predetermined to do certain things or not, we as human beings STILL have value and moral judgments.

a clinically diagnosed psychopathic killer may have been able to do very little about preventing himself from doing horrible things. BUT THOSE THINGS ARE STILL HORRIBLE.

although we can question whether such an individual is responsible for his actions, very few people other than sociopaths would be unable to decide whether the crime with RIGHT or WRONG. but the culpability of the criminal is a different matter.

hey stahlberg,

take a breath and stop arguing from a point that you are right and i am absolutely wrong.

as i've said, people smarter than us have been arguing exactly these kinds of things for longer than we've been alive and it's not likely that we're going to settle it here.

instead of trying to prove how ignorant i am, let's just have a friendly and interesting discussion.

jin

[BoydLake]

Originally posted by jinchoung
my my my,

we ARE covering a lot of topics in this thread. for most people who are insulted by my world view, we have encountered - bum bum buuuuuum:

FREE WILL VS. DETERMINISM! FIGHT!

i am CERTAIN, there would be many people insulted by this view and consider it a copout, but that doesn't make it false in and of itself.

not only traits like intelligence or charisma or creative thought but where do you guys think the ability to knuckle down and work, where do you think drive, where do you think constitution and determination come from? or why such effort to one person is subjectively joy (if not outright necessity) while to another the experience is very different.

i would argue that those things by and large come from: environment and genetics. or put it another way NATURE and NURTURE.

human beings like to think that they are so very different from the rest of the animal kingdom but they are pretty predictable if you can observe all the 'input connections'.

i wouldn't say that free will doesn't come into the equation AT ALL... but i seriously question the amount of success of any individual owes a huge part to it.

that's why when most really successful people are interviewed, most of them feel 'blessed and gratitude' or that 'luck' had a large part in it. it's because forces beyond their conscious volition has been and have always been involved in their lives.

jin

p.s. and since we have segued into the realm of philosophy, we should try to keep 'who would be insulted by what' arguments out of it. cuz yeah, people may be insulted but as i said, it doesn't address the truth or falsity of anything.

Uh, might you mean "falsehood"?

Anyhow, according to the world view you express, there's no right or wrong in peoples' behavior since according to this view (which is I believe more correctly labeled Fatalism) what they do is largely determined by genetics and environment. This explains the thinking you see all the time in the world that people aren't really responsible for what they do because ... (insert convenient excuse or *ahem* environmental/genetic determining factor).

Sometimes events out of our control create fortunate conditions to be sure, but most luck is also in our control to a degree since luck is "where preparation meets opportunity". Luck happens, but you can't get lucky unless you're willing to roll the dice eh? Most success is in fact in our control since our lives pretty much become the sum of all our choices whether we react to events or pro-actively create circumstances that increase the odds that good things will come our way. I suppose it really comes down to either acting or being acted upon.... I prefer the former.

Being grateful for success has nothing to do really with feeling like you were just more lucky.... truth be told more people say " I was just lucky" to appear less arrogant, since many people hate it when others are successful. Others are actually genuinely grateful to God, Allah, Gaia, or other higher power for their success.

Is success in others so bothersome to you that you must explain it away as fate? Does the idea of being held accountable for your own success scare you? Is personal self confidence in others something that intimidates you? I think that success has less to do with the cards a person is dealt than what he/she does with those cards. Some of the most successful people that have lived started with absolutely nil. Some of them even overcome incredibly debilitating handicaps at the same time.

[BoydLake]

Originally posted by jinchoung
.... people smarter than us...

Hey man, speak for yourself. :p

[jinchoung]

Originally posted by Stahlberg
So let's remove all authors right's then. Those greedy crooks will still keep on working their asses off, even for no reward.


now i'm going to go sci fi on you guys so hold onto your hats.

i think that in the future, we're going to see something that just about approximates that.

check it:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

human history so far seems to me to be driven by SCARCITY and LABOR.

there's not enough for everybody and to get your share, ya gotta have legions of unlucky bastards works hours and days to get a pinch of the good stuff. and this creates the various class systems throughout history - those who do the labor are the peons and the those who don't are the uppercrust.

modern technology seems to be heading for a place where those truths and standards will no longer hold.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
even today, there are lots of MENIAL and or MANUAL WORKERS. people who have to do very labor intensive, repetitive, dull and low paying jobs. our economy still requires it.

now consider the role of AUTOMATION in society today as well. we have robots working automobile assembly lines. i think if humanity does not wipe itself out, with WMD of today as well as future potential disasters like a manmade genetic plague that some guy cooked up in his bathtub, what will the level automation look like in 50 years? 100 years? 1000 years?

it will be cheaper to have automated machines 'flipping burgers' than hiring a high school student. it will be cheaper having an automated mopping machine scrubbing down the halls.

right now, first world nations have an issue with manual labor type jobs going ever more to third world nations top cut costs. eventually, that will stop too and no HUMAN will be doing those jobs at all.

eventually, every possible unpleasant and menial job will simply be automated out of the human workplace because it will be cheaper to do so.

BOOM.

all of a sudden, our currently formulated economic systems don't work anymore.

there is NO LOWER CLASSES because all of their jobs are gone. again, we have seen things like this happen already.

at that point, they'll either just starve to death or something drastic has to change. but that change also has to embrace another new fact of life:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO SCARCITY.

even today, there are examples of surplus grain allowing to go to rot in order to preserve prices and such....

but as technology gets better, the means of producing, engineering and harvesting gets better too.

and eventually, i don't think we're going to have to scramble for our pinch of the good stuff simply because there will in fact be plenty for everybody.

hell, this may indeed be true today but for the obfuscation of the current economic system.

in any case, in the future, this will be overtly clear.

now, at this point, the upper classes can try to maintain the hierarchy by putting up an even bolder facade of ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY.

but at that point, i think it's very likely we'll see a revolution that will make the french one look like a trip to disneyland.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

so NO SCARCITY. NO MANUAL LABOR.

at that point, i think the only thing human beings will do is that which THEY CHOOSE TO DO.

and what they choose to do will invariably end up being things that only human beings CAN do.

so, everyone will do what they would choose in answer to that ol' high school question: "if you didn't have to worry about money and you could do anything you wanted, what would you do?"

nobody wants to be an INBETWEENER animator. and in 3d, that's been automated out with spline curves. but there are still people who WANT TO ANIMATE.

nobody wants to be a lab worker but there are people who would still want to do RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT. there will still be those who want to be doctors, engineers, artists.

so in the absence of scarcity and the necessity for manual labor, what would you charge for you to do the work that gives meaning to your life?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

well, somebody here wanted a new idea... howabout that? :)

jin

[jinchoung]

Originally posted by Boyd Lake
Hey man, speak for yourself. :p

ah, well if your mighty intellect can shadow the great thinkers of history and today, then what possible chance do i have? what folly have i indulged in.

i yield to your superiority sir.

jin

[jinchoung]

oh, and it's been perhaps intimated so i may as well address it:

i am not unsuccessful. i'm not coming from a position of vast envy.

but i am, perhaps more willing than others, to take even my own success and even my own self, with a grain of salt.

i'm not threatened by arguing positions that may in fact be detrimental to my own well-being (or at least self image).

so things like free trade and such and the outsourcing of even animation jobs to india and such... i don't approach these issues personally. for me it's a matter of intellectual detachment is all.

jin

[jinchoung]

Originally posted by Boyd Lake
Uh, might you mean "falsehood"?

ummm, i might... but i said 'falsity' your majesty:

falsity - n. 1. quality or condition of being false; incorrectness; untruthfulness; treachery. 2. something false; falsehood.

Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary
of the English Language.

also available at dictionary.com.

jin

[BoydLake]

Originally posted by jinchoung
ah, well if your mighty intellect can shadow the great thinkers of history and today, then what possible chance do i have? what folly have i indulged in.

i yield to your superiority sir.

jin
Dude...... it was a joke.

[Stahlberg]

instead of trying to prove how ignorant i am, let's just have a friendly and interesting discussion.

Instead of trying to prove how intelligent you are, let's just have a friendly and interesting discussion.
No need to patronize me. I know we're covering old ground here. It might be interesting to other people though, even if it isn't to you.

And I assure you, when I stop being friendly, you'll notice it.

[jinchoung]

is that a threat?!

ha... yah, i'm sure i will notice. by your banning.

jin

[Stahlberg]

is that a threat?!
LOL Yes I'm planning to smite you with my harsh words :)
i'm sure i will notice.
So you admit I was being friendly. :)

[Leonard]

knock it off guys.

L.

[Atwooki]

An interesting article to ease the tension a bit ;)

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98sep/copy.htm

(oldish, but still good)

Atwooki

[PixelVampire]

Atwooki - That was one hell of a long article:-)

As I started this thread I demand an answer from you guys.

Why do I not see lot of blood gushing out in the movie "Hannibal" when "H" cuts and removes the upper part of FBI agents head? Plus is it medically possible for a person to function like in the movie?

The sad part is that it was a movie but in reality much worse thing happen. For example the case in Germany. The cannibal fried the victims private parts in garlic and then they joked and ate it together.
Too much EVIL in this world.
Now that changed the tone of this topic didn't it?

[Atwooki]

REALLY, PixelVampire???
Surprised they hung around to prepare the event with garlic seasoning - wonder what the case would have been if one of them didn't like garlic? :D

Atwooki

[PixelVampire]

Here you go Atwooki something for supper :-)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3286721.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1171766.stm
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/01/30/cannibal040130
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040130-065651-1132r.htm

[dvornik]

Well, there's another article on the subject in NYTimes. This time it's about how the porn industry is dealing with copyright issues on the net, P2P and so on. It's in the Buisiness section

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/08/business/yourmoney/08porn.html?pagewanted=1&hp

Turns out porn is the only industry taking a sensible approach to the problem. In fact, they don't see it as much of a problem. Here's some quotes from the porn business people:

"...the key is to make a product available that's reasonably priced and reasonably easy to obtain."

"Free is very anarchistic and hard to deal with, and you don't know what you're getting... Cheap is more convenient."

Totally makes sense. Makes business sense for them and doesn't antagonize their customers.

Always good to have another reason to watch more porn.

[jinchoung]

sex workers...

is there anything they can't do? (wiping tear from my eye)

god bless them. where oh where would the geeky, the awkward, the mouth breathing, the socially debilitated and the wildly unattractive among us do without them.

sniff.

jin

[dvornik]

[edit] never mind, don't want to get into a fight again

[Atwooki]

...mouth breathing...? :surprised

Atwooki

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.