House of Reps and Obama kill SOPA

[Abegweit]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that the huge amount of corporate pressure by companies notorious for abusing IP right has nothing to do with it. If only there was no government, they would suddendly become charity works and never try to screw over consumers, I'm sure.

No no, it's all the government's fault - at least for the ideologically blind.

Look. This is not complicated. Corporations or any other private bodies are not the people who are going to pass this law, assuming it passes. Congress passes laws. Not private individuals or corporations. Congress is the source of corruption. All of it. Hell. If I had any power or influence I might well fall for the temptation to use Power for myself too. We all are weak, you know.

What I don't understand is people who claim, despite that proof of science, intellect and all eternity, that Power can be used for the good of ordinary people. Apparently these Power-worshippers actually believe bureaucrats will actually use their Power to defend the common folk against Power.

Please explain.

 

[Takhisis]

Lobbying groups don't give money to politicians who don't support their pet projects. This is how things work for every lobbying group, the MPAA and RIAA are not extra nefarious for this.

Au contraire, it just means that the rest aren't less nefarious for doing it.

So if I write a book and sell it, how do I ensure no one is copying it and selling it without paying me for it, without some sort of legal framework in place to guard against this behavior?

The fact that nobody is going to buy pirated media that they can easily get for free would be a pretty good start.

Especially when it's done like outside your precious First World and exports of media are actively stopped legal action and/or forbidden from the start so that something can be 'introduced' 'in due time' i.e. a year later or perhaps never, since they're petty-minded who think that since they can't make a profit on faraway countries they'd better prevent the people who live in those parts to listen to music they didn't make anyway or watch series they didn't act in or shoot and make it illegal and, worse, prosecutable. Any money they can't sponge off us is a 'loss' and as such requires compensation.

 

[choxorn]

What I don't understand is people who claim, despite that proof of science, intellect and all eternity, that Power can be used for the good of ordinary people. Apparently these Power-worshippers actually believe bureaucrats will actually use their Power to defend the common folk against Power.

Please explain.

Explanation: There's a difference between "Can be used for good" and "Will be used for good."

 

[illram]

The fact that nobody is going to buy pirated media that they can easily get for free would be a pretty good start.

How does that answer my question?

 

[Traitorfish]

How does that answer my question?

It doesn't, it suggest that your question is based on unrealistic premises.

 

[Abegweit]

Explanation: There's a difference between "Can be used for good" and "Will be used for good."

Indeed there is. My reading of history is that Power is just about invariably used for the gain of the people who possess it. In the past hundred+ years we have seen the rise of demagogues who claim that they want power to help ordinary folk. With the odd exception, once they come to power they use to for their own purposes.

Actually I doubt that power can ever be used for the good of the common people. The best that you can hope for is that a fundamentally decent man rises to take the position of Power and then proceeds to renounce Power. On this subject, Warren Harding and Ron Paul come to mind.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

all i can say is what the .... are you on about?

 

[bombshoo]

Actually I doubt that power can ever be used for the good of the common people. The best that you can hope for is that a fundamentally decent man rises to take the position of Power and then proceeds to renounce Power. On this subject, Warren Harding and Ron Paul come to mind.

By having one of the most corrupt administrations in U.S. history and then dying in office?

I agree he was basically a nice enough guy on a personal level (other than the four separate extramarital affairs, I suppose), but I'm sort of confused as to why you say your model President is Harding, a man who let government corruption run wild, right after you make a post attacking the evils of government. That, and how did he renounce power? He died in office. Or are you talking about something else he did before being President?

 

[GamezRule]

Maybe he realized how hard he failed and then died?

 

[choxorn]

Indeed there is. My reading of history is that Power is just about invariably used for the gain of the people who possess it. In the past hundred+ years we have seen the rise of demagogues who claim that they want power to help ordinary folk. With the odd exception, once they come to power they use to for their own purposes.

While that's mostly true...

Actually I doubt that power can ever be used for the good of the common people.

...I think it has been used for the good of the common people sometimes, too.

 

[illram]

It doesn't, it suggest that your question is based on unrealistic premises.

So if I write a book and sell it, how do I ensure no one is copying it and selling it without paying me for it, without some sort of legal framework in place to guard against this behavior?

What is unrealistic about my question? People writing books and wanting to sell them for money seems like a fairly safe premise. If the issue is "well it's a book, it's not easily copied" assume I am self-publishing it online, but want to sell it for money. How do I stop people from copying it? (Let's also assume people want it.)

This is not a trap question, I am genuinely curious. I think modern copyright is being taken to extremes by some. On the other hand, I am unsure as to the solution, beyond simply reigning in those extremes. (Such as SOPA.) I doubt many here would like self-executing copyright, e.g., DRM.

 

[Archbob]

I honestly don't know what you're trying to say here. I suggested that we should take a critical perspective on contemporary intellectual property laws, and your response is to insist that this is "how human nature is supposed to work", whatever that means, that it is "the survival of the fittest", and that anyone who doesn't think a form of property-law that is maybe two hundred years old is eternally valid is a "utopian socialist"?

Because you refuse to realize that the system can't really change with the way people naturally are. Your only real option is to take it away, and doing that would lead to very few products actually being invented. You can tweak the laws a little bit and kill things like SOPA which overextend the powers, but there's really no realistic way your going to totally reform them.

Copyrights aren't bottlenecks, they are necessities to most of our useful everyday products being invented.

Russia is actually a pretty good example. In things like space science and stuff they kept neck-in-neck with us but in stuff like creations of useful everyday products, they sucked. Centralist economy, no individual wealth or property gain, no one is going to make products because there's little incentive to.

 

[Traitorfish]

Indeed there is. My reading of history is that Power is just about invariably used for the gain of the people who possess it. zIn the past hundred+ years we have seen the rise of demagogues who claim that they want power to help ordinary folk. With the odd exception, once they come to power they use to for their own purposes.

Actually I doubt that power can ever be used for the good of the common people. The best that you can hope for is that a fundamentally decent man rises to take the position of Power and then proceeds to renounce Power. On this subject, Warren Harding and Ron Paul come to mind.

What do you actually mean by "power"? You're being incredibly vague; if I'd never heard the term before, I'd think from your post that it was a magical crystal that shoots lightning.

Because you refuse to realize that the system can't really change with the way people naturally are.

I don't really know what this means; I suspect it's nonsense?

Your only real option is to take it away, and doing that would lead to very few products actually being invented. You can tweak the laws a little bit and kill things like SOPA which overextend the powers, but there's really no realistic way your going to totally reform them.

Copyrights aren't bottlenecks, they are necessities to most of our useful everyday products being invented.

How did technological progress occur before copyright laws became widespread, which, you'll recall, was maybe a hundred, hundred-fifty years ago?

Russia is actually a pretty good example. In things like space science and stuff they kept neck-in-neck with us but in stuff like creations of useful everyday products, they sucked. Centralist economy, no individual wealth or property gain, no one is going to make products because there's little incentive to.

That's not actually how the Soviet economy worked. (Or unworked, or whatever.)

 

[Archbob]

I don't really know what this means; I suspect it's nonsense?

See, you still won't admit that humans won't innovate nearly as much without the incentives that copyrights/patents provide. The system we have today is necessary.

How did technological progress occur before copyright laws became widespread, which, you'll recall, was maybe a hundred, hundred-fifty years ago?

And how much did technology innovation speed up during those years? We've invented and discovered more new technologies and innovations in the last 150 years then the previous 2000. In the previous 2000 we went from a bow and arrow to a rifle. In the last 150, we've gone from a rifle to being able to nuke a city while being on the other side of the globe. Most of the major advances in medicine, sanitation, flight, space flight, not to mention all the common household things like washing machines, PCs, laptops, desktops, printers, TVs, cars, etc were all invented within the last 150. A lot of these advanced came because of industrialization, which also happened to be around when these laws came into the picture and major corporations started taking hold. Whether for better or worse is for everyone to decide, but corporations, copyrights, and profit incentives have all been major drivers of inventions that make our everyday lives a lot easier.

That's not actually how the Soviet economy worked. (Or unworked, or whatever.)

Soviet economy was completely centralized and the state did control everything.

 

[Traitorfish]

See, you still won't admit that humans won't innovate nearly as much without the incentives that copyrights/patents provide. The system we have today is necessary.

It's not that I "won't admit" it, it's that I find any line of argument premised on the idea that human behaviour can be explained in solely "natural" terms to be absurd. Humans aren't weevils.

And how much did technology innovation speed up during those years? We've invented and discovered more new technologies and innovations in the last 150 years then the previous 2000. In the previous 2000 we went from a bow and arrow to a rifle. In the last 150, we've gone from a rifle to being able to nuke a city while being on the other side of the globe. Most of the major advances in medicine, sanitation, flight, space flight, not to mention all the common household things like washing machines, PCs, laptops, desktops, printers, TVs, cars, etc were all invented within the last 150. A lot of these advanced came because of industrialization, which also happened to be around when these laws came into the picture and major corporations started taking hold. Whether for better or worse is for everyone to decide, but corporations, copyrights, and profit incentives have all been major drivers of inventions that make our everyday lives a lot easier.

The two certainly coincided, but in what sense does that imply that one is the necessary precursor of the other? Let alone eternally so? To go back to the question I actually asked, how do you explain technological innovation prior to this period? It may have been limited, but it was certainly real- the very bow and arrow which you mentioned was refined thousands of times in different ways by different people, without a single patent or copyright appearing.

Soviet economy was completely centralized and the state did control everything.

No and no. But this is neither on-topic nor likely to be a fruitful area of discussion, so I don't think there's any reason to go any further with it.

 

[Takhisis]

If you're talking about military technology then the reason for that is just the two World Wars and military contractors, not copyright by itself.

And the Internet was a military project, too!

 

[Crezth]

Because you refuse to realize that the system can't really change with the way people naturally are. Your only real option is to take it away, and doing that would lead to very few products actually being invented.

So you don't think living in a democratic country where a lot of (white, male) individuals enjoyed a significant degree of autonomy and freedom had anything to do with it? It was just the patents?

 

[Akka]

Look. This is not complicated. Corporations or any other private bodies are not the people who are going to pass this law, assuming it passes. Congress passes laws. Not private individuals or corporations. Congress is the source of corruption.

Nope, Congress is not the SOURCE of the corruption, it's the RECIPIENT.
The source is the companies that are lobbying (not that it means that the Congress is blameless, a corruptee is just as guilty as a corruptor).

What I don't understand is people who claim, despite that proof of science, intellect and all eternity, that Power can be used for the good of ordinary people. Apparently these Power-worshippers actually believe bureaucrats will actually use their Power to defend the common folk against Power.

Please explain.

Nobody say that unrestricted power will be used for the good of the common people.
What "we" say is that a state is the only place where you can have RESTRICTED power.
Democratically elected states are (supposedly) answerable to the people (even if it's something that require the famed "eternal vigilance"). Companies ARE NOT. I prefer to place the power into something that answer to everyone rather than in something which ONLY purpose is to further its own profits.

Seems pretty obvious to me.

 

[Traitorfish]

What "we" say is that a state is the only place where you can have RESTRICTED power.

Which is demonstrably false, but m'kay.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Nope, Congress is not the SOURCE of the corruption, it's the RECIPIENT.

So if someone pays me a bribe and I take it, I am not corrupt because I am the RECIPIENT of the corruption?

Spoiler :

And your solution is to give me even more power?