Reflecting on Copyright Laws

29

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

aarcane

How about something simple:
Any work must be maintained available in current mainstream publication media with proceeds going to it's original creator at some point within every five year period, or the copyright shall lapse permanently.

That way abandonware becomes public domain. Old print books that nobody prints become public domain. Anything that a company fails to provide for sale for five years or more in a given market becomes public domain. This'll encourage companies like Disney to put out Blu-Rays of all their movies, or at least keep them available on DVD... It'll allow gamers to play old classics that haven't been available for purchase in ages (American McGee's Alice, Blood, NES and SNES games, etc..), and it'll allow all the older books that have been out of print and which haven't been released as e-books to be transcoded to epub and released in the public domain.

The only thing that needs to be defined is "Current mainstream publication media", which I think should be defined by market share.

When DVD sales reallly start to drop off and Blu-Ray become the dominant media format by a large margin, then DVD shouldn't count anymore. Some economists can nitpick over equations if it ever becomes a law.

avatar

MaximumMike

That actually sounds like a sensible start. Much more is needed, but I like your idea.

avatar

carage

Reminds me of Nintendo threatening legal action against the guy who made a webgame remake of Mario Brothers...

avatar

MaximumMike

I have no idea how I double posted, but I did.

avatar

MaximumMike

I honestly think we're better without any Copyright at all then we are with the system we currently have. It really ought to be common sense that if you're not the person who wrote the original work, you shouldn't be entitled to a copyright for any extensive period of time.

avatar

Rebel_X

I beg to differ. Imagine yourself working hard to create a book and took you 5 years to finish, to find out some tw@ took your hard labor on a silver plate and left you with nothing! Since there is no Copyright laws, what are you going to do?

Copyright laws should exist, but at the same time should be modified.

avatar

MaximumMike

Can you read? I'm not advocating for no copyright laws. I'm just saying that the mess we have now is worse.

avatar

FireGarden

We need common sense in copyright laws. Some are just pathetic and need throwing out. It's such a hard balance - but while we live in a capitalist system they are inevitable and probably needed.

I can't wait until the financial markets go tits up and then we may find a better alternative to capitalism and greed. (Yes, I have recently watch the Zeitgeist movies - can't you tell?!!)

avatar

Sonickid101

Nowadays we do not live under capitalism. Capitalism in America died in 1913. What we live under is Crony Capitalism, Corporatism, or quite likely Fascism. but whatever it is it surely isn't free market capitalism. I am a Libertarian, lets try and look and see if we can fix our problems with more freedom not less. and certainly not communism.

avatar

MaximumMike

What we have is outright socialism masking itself as crony capitalism - this way it has a scapegoat for its failures.

avatar

aarcane

Communism is the answer, But People are the major limiting factor there. We're not ready. Until we can ALL learn to TRULY work together for the betterment of ALL, no change in rules will ever truly change how we all play the game of life.

avatar

FireGarden

I agree completely - although I don't think what you are suggesting would be communism as we think of it. People are just too wrapped up in money and the 'free market' that they don't see - can't see - a solution that is so much better. It's logically impossible for the 'free market' and capitalism to go on much longer on a finite Earth. It is all going to come collapsing down some day soon - but I fear people will still fail to see the obvious answer. It worries me.

avatar

MaximumMike

If you think the market in the US of A is free... you're very uninformed. And if there is a better solution, please name it and offer some proof. Also, please elaborate on what's logically wrong with a free market, because you sound like you're talking out of your ass to me. And what IS the obvious answer, in your opinion?

avatar

FireGarden

Business is based on the profit and growth paradigm that cannot go on forever. Like I said, it'a logical impossibility, as it would need infinite resources (materials and monetary). Anyway, before that, it is going to strangle itself. Why? Because as business's look to limit cost, more and more jobs are going to be given over to machines and computers. In the coming years there really isn't going to be much humans can do better than machines. If more and more people are losing jobs to machines, they will have less money (possibly even no money) to spend on the very products these companies are selling.

It's a system that has served us well until now - but it needs something to supersede it. The obvious answer to me, and many others that have thought about it, is to lose the monetary system. That's right, no money whatsoever! You would need a planet that acted as one, and used and limited it's resources according to sustainability. (I could go into detail here, but use your imagination and look where technology is going).

Will we get there? I hope so, but most humans are idiots and any switch of system is going to be one of the toughest things we ever have to do as a species. When the markets come crashing down on the world scale - that may be the incentive to try.

avatar

MaximumMike

>>Business is based on the profit and growth paradigm that cannot go on forever. it'a logical impossibility, as it would need infinite resources (materials and monetary).

Ok, a few things are wrong with that.

1. You talk about the problem of this profit growth paradigm (which you've done nothing to explain) going on forever on finite resources. But you seem to have assumed there is some infinite amount of wealth and infinite demand for product to drive this paradigm on towards infinity. But there is no such thing. Both of those factors are necessary to drive your paradigm, and they are both finite. I submit to you that there are sufficient resources on this planet to satisfy the demand for products and the potential for profits.

2. You are using some imaginary notion of business in your assertion of this profit growth paradigm. I'm guessing you got your economics lesson from the recent Dr. Seuss Lorax movie. If I understood the context, you think that businesses just want to keep on biggering and biggering and consuming more and more resources, because that will lead to more profit. Unfortunately, biggering doesn't always mean more profits. And some businesses that did too much biggering found themselves smallering and finally disappearing, just ask Circuit City. I'll give you that some businesses seem to follow this paradigm, but I posit to you that those businesses will eventually either go under or break apart.

3. You assume that mega-corporations bent on biggering at all costs are what drives our economy. I posit that while you would be unwise to ignore these behemoths, you would be equally unwise to ignore small businesses. Most reputable economists don't ignore them and recognize them as an essential element of our economy. Although it does sometimes happen that you see some small business exploding and biggering, I think it's a hard sell that small business has your profit/growth paradigm as its goal. And if the ever biggering corporations eventually fail (which they might) small business will be there to pick up the pieces.

4. But the biggest problem you face is your position that there are limited resources. To the best of my knowledge the universe is infinite, containing infinite resources. Even now business men are strategizing how to mine asteroids near to the Earth. These are beds of resources the size of mountains, or even bigger. It's inevitable that we will eventually start mining them, even if it takes 50 years or more. At best, you could only hope that the human race's rate of consumption is greater than its rate of obtaining resources. Do you really mean to posit that corporations will have ravaged the Earth and wiped out human life in that time? But even as absurd as that sounds, I'm being too generous here, because your position is that resources are limited and that it isn't "logically possible" for businesses to sustain their need to consume them. Whether that will eventually happen or not, I cannot say. But your claim that it is a "logical impossibility" is patently false.

>>Anyway, before that, it is going to strangle itself. Why? Because as business's look to limit cost, more and more jobs are going to be given over to machines and computers. In the coming years there really isn't going to be much humans can do better than machines. If more and more people are losing jobs to machines, they will have less money (possibly even no money) to spend on the very products these companies are selling.

And you think this has never occurred to big corporations? Maybe some naive CEO's really believe the rules of supply and demand don't apply to them, but most businesses know they need demand for a product, i.e., customers, in order to be successful.

Furthermore, machines have been replacing human jobs for hundreds of years (if not longer). Some more recent machines that have stolen our jobs are conveyor belts, automobiles, power tools, and even the internet. In every case, those inventions have led to more jobs than they have eliminated. You seem to think that corporations possess some infinite, insatiable amount of greed and that human beings are in possession of some infinitesimal, insignificant amount of ingenuity. So, obviously the greed of corporations will eventually overcome the ingenuity of man, to the detriment of both. I'm not convinced that man is ready to make himself obsolete.

But the notion of human obsolescence is a highly theoretical and debatable one, with too many factors and unpredictable variables, to say anything with certainty. I wouldn't rule out that it is a possibility, though highly unlikely. But you state it with certainty, and the reasons you have given aren't very good ones.

>>It's a system that has served us well until now - but it needs something to supersede it.

Why, because you don't understand economics?

>>The obvious answer to me, and many others that have thought about it, is to lose the monetary system. That's right, no money whatsoever!

Ok, but just because you gave something some thought and came to an "obvious" conclusion doesn't mean you were correct. The nation that gave us philosophy thought that a man in the clouds hurled lightning bolts down to the earth. But they certainly thought about it and arrived at a conclusion.

But let me address what you're proposing here. If you eliminate money in the physical sense, man will just create something else to take its place. History has shown that man has always devised some system of tracking wealth. Whether sheep, tribal beads, human scalps, jewelry, spices, coins, paper, or credit cards man has always had a way of symbolizing wealth. To propose that society move away from money is to propose that mankind become something other than mankind.

>>You would need a planet that acted as one,

Are you seriously proposing some sort of human hive mind? You don't think we can get corporations (who are run by people, btw) to behave, but you think they're all going to volunteer to be a part of the hive? Or do you propose we compel them, for their own good after all? This is your "obvious solution" that came as the product of serious thought? You may be a transhumanist waiting with open arms for posthumanity, but I for one want no part in it. I rather like humanity as it is, even with all its imperfections. Furthermore, you would need the same technology you previously condemned for destroying jobs and impoverishing man in order to achieve your hive mind.

>>and used and limited it's resources according to sustainability.

But we're already doing that? Or are you trying to say that we are currently somehow sustaining an unsustainable rate of consumption?

>> (I could go into detail here, but use your imagination and look where technology is going).

How is that helpful? My imagination obviously doesn't take me the same place yours takes you. It's not very likely I'll arrive at the same conclusion you have. Without the details I can only conclude this is fanciful thinking and science fiction rubbish.

>>Will we get there?

That's a good question since you opted not to tell me where "there" is and advised me to imagine it for myself.

>>I hope so, but most humans are idiots

Does that include you? Or are you on the inside of something the rest of us idiots just don't get?

>> switch of system is going to be one of the toughest things we ever have to do as a species.

You have no confidence that we can reign in our corporations and return to a free market. You don't believe man is innovative enough to create new jobs when machines replace existing ones. But you somehow think that we will create the hive mind and move away from any form of monetary system and live our lives in perfect unison and harmony?

>> When the markets come crashing down on the world scale - that may be the incentive to try.

When that happens, we'll have the inevitable big (and over due) correction to the world economy - as is necessary according to the laws of economics. How humanity reacts to that event is yet to be determined. I would hope we will learn not to try to cheat the market and rebuild a more sound economy. But its also likely that we will blame and kill a bunch of people and then return to corruption as usual.

avatar

FireGarden

"When that happens, we'll have the inevitable big (and over due) correction to the world economy - as is necessary according to the laws of economics. How humanity reacts to that event is yet to be determined. I would hope we will learn not to try to cheat the market and rebuild a more sound economy. But its also likely that we will blame and kill a bunch of people and then return to corruption as usual."

Anything like that - fixing business, the banking system, is at best only ever going to be a stopgap solution/system. It may be a necessary intermediate between a moneyless society and our current system - but it will be just that - a stepping stone. The problems with money and business run too deep. (I'm not going to go into detail, because mostly I can't be arsed now - and the information is out there).

avatar

FireGarden

I appreciate you taking the time to reply.

1. I'm not talking about any single company, but technology companies in general are using the same resources (precious metals e.t.c.). It really doesn't matter if they go bust or shrink because there will always be another company to take their place. It will just go on until the earth is depleted of mineable minerals. Your argument about taking it into space may be valid in 50-100 years - but I'm talking about the Earth as a closed system. It's not complicated - it's finite.

2 & 3. "Dr. Seuss Lorax" is somebody I have never heard of. My knowledge of economics only goes to A-level - so I never profess to know more than I do - but I have read lots of books on the subject because it fascinates me. I can't believe you are denying that business is based on the profit and growth paradigm; speak to any shareholder. Large businesses tend to buy out or strangle small businesses. The only small businesses that will survive are the mom and pop stores in the middle of nowhere. Ultimately, it's irrelevant if they are small company - they still have to project increased profit and growth year on year just to survive inflation and other rising costs.

4. Your numbering system gets lost here! :)

On machines replacing humans: Of course it's been happening a while, but the point is NO jobs in the future will require a human. None, nada. I'm confident creative AI will be cracked also this century. Humans will be free to pursue what they enjoy. If you can't see that coming, you have your eyes closed. This neatly brings us to a moneyless society. People will have 3D printers that can fabricate any object they desire - of course materials will be restricted by sustainability - but there is more than enough for everyone to have what they want (within reason). All this will be computer controlled. You completely misunderstood me. Yes, if we keep with a money based society more and more people will become impoverished - but the upshot of losing the money and machines doing everything has the biggest benefit there is - true freedom for humanity.

Yes, it sounds utopian, transhumanist or whatever - but being an atheist I don't subscribe to being in any groups like that - to me, it is just the logical way society has to go. If you can't see it - it's because you either haven't thought about it that deeply or you are almost religious in your devotion to the free-market (which by the way is one of the worst ideas there is - business with no government intervention??!!). Governments, need to restrict businesses in many ways to protect the needs of the people and planet above anything else. Granted, most interventions are hindering and unhelpful at best today - but that is because most politicians are fucking idiots.

"How is that helpful? My imagination obviously doesn't take me the same place yours takes you. It's not very likely I'll arrive at the same conclusion you have. Without the details I can only conclude this is fanciful thinking and science fiction rubbish."

I can't help you with that - to me it's perfectly obvious. I guess you are more limited than I am or you just don't pay enough attention to what is going on. It's fair enough, I'm practically useless at anything other than science and computing.

avatar

MaximumMike

>> I'm not talking about any single company, but technology companies in general are using the same resources (precious metals e.t.c.). It really doesn't matter if they go bust or shrink because there will always be another company to take their place.

Well it does matter, because there's nothing I've seen that shows that businesses can sustain the kind of resource consumption, or rather planetary depletion, you're talking about and remain profitable. There really is a point where if supply exceeds demand to a certain extent you go bust. I'm really not sure how a new business can do the same thing that caused previous businesses to fail, and not fail itself. I really don't believe that human demand is enough to deplete the Earth of its resources. And businesses that deplete resources at a rate that would desolate the Earth in the next 100 years will likely go bust. This is only sustainable when you allow government to prop up bad business models. But the free market will keep businesses from consuming significantly more resources than they need for their business model.

>>It will just go on until the earth is depleted of mineable minerals. Your argument about taking it into space may be valid in 50-100 years - but I'm talking about the Earth as a closed system. It's not complicated - it's finite.

Yea, but I disagree with you that we can deplete the Earth in those 50 to 100 years. And at the end of whatever that time is, your closed system has to expand to include whatever resources new technology allows us to mine in space. And if you expand this on out towards infinity as the human race devours asteroids, planets, star systems, or whatever the rate of consumption simply has to be less than the rate of discovering/mining new resources. So it doesn't really matter whether the system is an infinite one or a finite one. The real consideration is whether human consumption will ever exceed the rate at which we are able to gather more resources. And if so, will it stay that high long enough to deplete whatever resources we have gathered? I have never seen any empirical evidence that suggests a free market can create this scenario on the Earth. But with government regulation, its certainly possible.

>>I can't believe you are denying that business is based on the profit and growth paradigm;

Ok, I'll admit that I was exaggerating when I called it imaginary. It's a phenomenon that's easily observable with many large corporations. I'll bet you didn't know that the Diesel clothing line is owned by Loreal who is owned by Nestle. Yep, the same people who make your chocolate make your designer jeans (I think I'm starting to see where the idea of edible clothing came from). So, I get that mega corporations adhere to this profit growth paradigm.

But the reason I called it imaginary is because I don't think this is the real purpose or nature of business, or even the goal of business. I think this is what business has become because it is in bed with government and the market place is anything but free.

>> speak to any shareholder. Large businesses tend to buy out or strangle small businesses.

Like our good friends at Nestle? Yea, I would agree with you that things like that happen - a lot. And that's why competition is so essential to a free market.

>>The only small businesses that will survive are the mom and pop stores in the middle of nowhere. Ultimately, it's irrelevant if they are small company - they still have to project increased profit and growth year on year just to survive inflation and other rising costs.

That's entirely untrue. Small business is thriving today. Our friends in the Obama administration aren't exactly making it any easier, but men with good business sense are doing just fine. My father owns a construction business he started with his own hands 30 years ago. It has had it's ups and downs over the years, but it has always remained profitable, provided for his family, provided for his partner's family, and provided for his employees and their families. His business has grown and shrank over the years with demand. But you know what, he competes in a decently fair market with lots of competition. The only thing that will prevent his business from surviving is him. He will have it as long as he wants it. Small businesses like his stand in stark contrast to everything you have been saying. Only government regulation will kill off small business in America.

>>they still have to project increased profit and growth year on year just to survive inflation and other rising costs.

Now there's a good bit of slight of hand. Here we are talking about growth as it pertains to the rate of resource consumption and you want to switch to financial inflation. But financial growth that keeps up with inflation consumes the same amount of resources, now doesn't it? So, that point is entirely irrelevant, and in no way supports your premise that small businesses exist merely to grow and consume exponentially more resources.

>>On machines replacing humans: Of course it's been happening a while, but the point is NO jobs in the future will require a human. None, nada.

Now that's a silly premise. I've already demonstrated to you that recent technologies that eliminated jobs created more jobs than they eliminated. I submit to you that for every job that technology replaces there will be more jobs created. At some point we will run out of people to do all of the jobs, and be more than glad of all the help we get from technology. Even if you can imagine technology that can literally perform every job known to man right now, I submit to you that man will create new jobs for himself based off of all that technology. You seem to have some alien notion of human behavior. Man is industrious. When he has nothing to do, he creates something. There will always be jobs.

>>Humans will be free to pursue what they enjoy. If you can't see that coming, you have your eyes closed.

I didn't have to see it coming. Humans are free to pursue what they enjoy now, at least in the good ole US of A. The Constitution guarantees you the right to the "pursuit of happiness". Yup, American citizens have had that since 1776. And guess what, many of them have chosen to work, pursue wealth, consume resources, and create jobs. Which bring us neatly to your next statement.

>>This neatly brings us to a moneyless society.

How? All of history indicates that an element of the nature of man is the pursuit of wealth. Where along the way did we suddenly remove that element from human nature? And who is going to pay for all that technology that is going to provide for your moneyless society? And lets just pretend for a minute that we will actually all have machines that will provide for our every whim. How do you think this solves our previous problem of the human race ravaging the Earth of its resources? If money limits man's capacity to consume resources, how do you imagine that a (moneyless) society with limitless free stuff will somehow consume even less?

>> People will have 3D printers that can fabricate any object they desire

And this is why I think you're talking about scifi fantasy. Until someone invents the Tardis, a 3D printer will never be able to make an object larger than itself. So, how am I going to get my car, or whatever other overly large product I might desire. Also, there's a reason most of our stuff is made in factories and not in our houses. The manufacturing process of many things is toxic. And you want to bring the toxicity of every single manufacturing process we have right inside our homes, and cram into some tiny box, maybe the size of a microwave that spits out everything we could possibly want. And even if that were possible how would you manage the logistics of the distribution of every type of resource to every person's home so he can manufacture anything he likes in his magic box? And if you're going to do that, don't you see the possibility of wasting a lot of our precious resources that you think we will consume in the next 50 years under our current system? So, wouldn't it make more sense to manufacture everything in one central location and then distribute it as needs arise, totally eliminating the need for the 3D printer (magic box)? You're going to need a distribution system regardless, so why not one that makes sense?

>> - of course materials will be restricted by sustainability

But what is this magical "sustainability" you speak of? How is it determined what is and is not sustainable? Do you mean I cannot have as much stuff as I want whenever I want it? Because earlier you said, "Humans will be free to pursue what they enjoy." So, either you meant what the authors of the Constitution were talking about when they said "pursuit of happiness," or you meant, "whatever I want whenever I want it." Which is it?

And if you're saying no, I cannot have just anything I want. Then, you're saying I have the opportunity to compete with everyone else for as much stuff as I can get, within the limits of sustainability - whatever that is. And how will you measure how much I consume and determine what I can and cannot have? It looks like you're going to need some system for tracking it all. If you haven't thought of a name yet, I propose we call it money.

It seems to me your notion of sustainability stands in contrast to your notion of a moneyless society. So, we either must have infinite resources or we must have money. I really don't see how it can work any other way.

>>but there is more than enough for everyone to have what they want (within reason).

But when has man's appetite for stuff been reasonable? How will you limit him when he becomes unreasonable again? Maybe with money?

>>All this will be computer controlled.

Ahhh... tricky tricky. So, there will be money. It's just that the computers will mange it for us. But aren't they pretty much doing that now? I fail to see how this is different.

>>You completely misunderstood me. Yes, if we keep with a money based society more and more people will become impoverished

You don't understand poverty at all. It's not a monetary condition. It's a human condition. Some people are just poor. They are entirely incapable of managing their lives and resources for themselves. It doesn't matter how much money you give them, they will still be poor. My grandfather remarried to a woman like that. He's the most frugal man I ever met, and she is draining him to nothing. And they have nothing to show for it. The woman is entirely co-dependent and incapable of caring for herself to the point that her own family will have nothing to do with her (she's younger than my mother btw). We love her and care for her, but that doesn't change the fact that this woman is poor and will always be poor.

On the flipside I've read the stories of men who have been millionaires, lost it all, and then millionaires again several times over. People like this have the capacity to retain more wealth. It's almost impossible for them to be poor. I'm not implying that everyone's financial situation is fixed and that it can never change for better or worse. But its undeniable that people have varying capacities for wealth. Your so-called moneyless society (which actually has money) does nothing about the human condition.

>> but the upshot of losing the money and machines doing everything has the biggest benefit there is - true freedom for humanity.

Is this another transhuman appeal to posthumanity? Or do you really have that little understanding of freedom? If you think freedom is not having any responsibility or work to do and having everything handed to you... well, I think you're the kind of fruitloop that's ruining what makes America great.

>>Yes, it sounds utopian, transhumanist or whatever - but being an atheist I don't subscribe to being in any groups like that

Why not? Based on what I've heard so far you'd fit into those circles just fine, and they're primarily comprised of atheists such as yourself anyway.

>> to me, it is just the logical way society has to go.

To me it's hardly rational, primarily fantasy, and borderline lunacy.

>>If you can't see it - it's because

It's not logical.

>>you either haven't thought about it that deeply

I've probably put more real thought into it than you have.

>>or you are almost religious in your devotion to the free-market

Well, maybe so. But no more so than my devotion to math. Both have been proven to work time and time again.

>>(which by the way is one of the worst ideas there is - business with no government intervention??!!)

I fail to understand how you see businesses, which are entirely run by people, as greedy and self serving. Yet, you see government, which is also run by people (and many times the same people), as benevolent and selfless. How does man's nature suddenly change just by participating in one organization or the other? It's asinine to think that government intervention in the market place will ever do anything but favor the interests of one greedy business over the other. Proof positive is the mess we have now.

From my perspective, they're all greedy and corrupt. Competition is neutral and doesn't take sides. It is the thing that will naturally keep businesses in check. Government can only either enforce competition or interfere with it. More times than not they are interfering with it, and should stay away. But I do agree with a small amount of government intervention when it becomes necessary to enforce competition.

>>Governments, need to restrict businesses in many ways to protect the needs of the people and planet above anything else.

Baloney. The only time governments need to restrict businesses is when they've already created a mess by interfering in the first place. If the government didn't use regulation to create huge conglomerates like Nestle, these businesses would never have the clout to push around consumers and communities in the first place. When public opinion of them changed they would go out of business. Take WalMart for example. Government helped them to get big and now everybody hates them, but we still shop there because there are no real alternatives. Thanks to big government big business is alive and well with very little competition.

>>Granted, most interventions are hindering and unhelpful at best today - but that is because most politicians are fucking idiots.

If you realize that, then I would think you would be in favor of separating the smart and greedy people in big business from the "fucking idiots" in big government. That sounds a lot like a free market to me.

>>I can't help you with that - to me it's perfectly obvious.

Yes, but we've already determined that just because something seems obvious that doesn't mean its correct.

>>I guess you are more limited than I am

Based on you current line of reasoning, I find that highly unlikely.

>> or you just don't pay enough attention to what is going on.

I probably pay too much attention, honestly. There are more important things in life than speculating about our unlikely transhuman futures.

>> I'm practically useless at anything other than science and computing.

If it's ok with you, I'm going to relegate you to the science-fiction category. I'll move you over to real science when I see something scientific.

avatar

FireGarden

We'll never agree. I was stupid for even trying. I learned that several years ago debating religious people, but now I just have to extend that to people like you. My time is too short to waste.

avatar

MaximumMike

People like me? Yes, people who go on about science fiction nonsense while offering no facts to back it up often have trouble agreeing with logical people who base their opinions on facts and reality. But you would have seemed a lot less stupid if you had not tried. Perhaps you should waste less time on fantasy novels and spend more time on something scholarly.

avatar

FireGarden

We disagree what constitutes reality. The only comment you made that I will respond to is your notion of freedom and the good old US of A because it was the most 'unrealistic' crap I've ever heard. Most people around the world can't choose to do what they want - but even in your country many/most people can't choose what they want to do either for a job. Often money worries and other responsibilities get in the way. Most people are just doing their best to survive and support themselves and/or their families. Do you really think these people can just drop things and train to become a physicist or a ballerina - or whatever their dream?? You don't live in the real world!

avatar

MaximumMike

>>You don't live in the real world!

Well, I don't live in the same world as you do anyway. I live in the world where I worked my ass off for everything I have in "the pursuit of happiness," (exactly what the Constitution guarantees me) despite the fact that money grubbing freeloaders like yourself are weighing down the whole system and asking hard working people like myself to carry the burden while they wait on mythical machines (which will inevitably be invented by hard working people like myself) to come wait on them hand and foot. And I don't yet have everything I want, but nothing is preventing me from getting there but myself. And I'm not whining and complaining about it just because its hard. I rather find satisfaction in overcoming difficulty, unlike some spoiled brats who naively think the entire world will be delivered to them on a sliver platter with no effort required on their part.

>>Most people are just doing their best to survive and support themselves and/or their families.

There's no doubt that you and the rest of the delusional people in the OWA movement really believe this. But what constitutes struggling in the prosperous US of A is what 80% of the rest of the world sees as the high-life. There's more opportunity here than anywhere else in the world. Stop making excuses about the economy and other people and try living your dreams if you really want them. Nobody's stopping you but yourself. Quit whining about how unfair society is and be accountable for your own life.

>>Do you really think these people can just drop things and train to become a physicist or a ballerina - or whatever their dream??

No one guarantees you that you will be able to fulfill your dreams. That's absurd. But every person in the USA has the opportunity to pursue them if he or she desires. And even your fantasy society cannot make that guarantee because, as you've already told us, machines will replace those jobs and jobs will cease to exist. So, my illiterate atheist friend, it safe to say no one can guarantee you success in life under any circumstances. I'm sorry you were misled.

>>even in your country many/most people can't choose what they want to do either for a job.

Yea, because they're not qualified. But no one is preventing them from pursuing any occupation they like. Look, Aaron Rodgers was injured in last night's football game. And until he's healthy the Packers are going to need a new quarter back. I'd love to have both the job and the same level of success as Aaron Rodgers. So, should it just be handed to me because I want it? Or do you think maybe I should have spent my life training for the position like the guy who will actually get the job? But you know I'm still free to pursue a job as a quarter back if I want to. I can go show up at tryouts for any NFL team whenever they hold them. But just because the opportunity is there doesn't mean they'll select me for the position over someone more qualified. And why should they?

>> The only comment you made that I will respond to is ... because it was the most 'unrealistic' crap I've ever heard.

Then I take it that you found the rest of it logically sound and agreed with it?

>> your notion of freedom and the good old US of A because it was the most 'unrealistic' crap I've ever heard.

Except that the United States of America is a "real" country and it's Constitution is a "real" document, unlike your fantasy society where you believe people will actually find it fulfilling to have absolutely nothing to do other than be a part of the great human hive-mind.

>>We disagree what constitutes reality.

That much is certain. I think I've heard enough of what you think reality is that I feel comfortable recommending that you seek therapy.

avatar

MaximumMike

What you're proposing is idiotic and unrealistic. Communism only works in a system of robots. It has been tried numerous times with actual human beings and failed... because it's incompatible with human life. So, until the transhumanists win and we all enter post-humanity, communism can never be the answer.

avatar

kerndaddy

communism is the answer if...you're an idiot.

avatar

FireGarden

Communism as has gone before is stupid - I agree - but a more equal society is possible with a sort of communism. It would have to be very pro-science for instance - unlike traditional communism. Study after study has shown people are happier in a more equal society. It's certainly doable, but we have to stop this learnt behaviour of 'greed' that is completely unnecessary.

avatar

MaximumMike

The problem is that greed is not a "learned" behavior. It is a human behavior. What we must "learn" as human beings is to somehow be selfless without losing our individuality. Most of us aren't any good at it.

That's why some really bright people came up with capitalism. It's the one system that flips greed on its head and makes it in your personal interest to serve the interests of others. And then there's competition to keep the whole thing honest. What most people identify as shortcomings of capitalism is actually what happens when government thinks it knows better and starts playing favorites and screwing with the market. And that, my friend, is anything but capitalism. If you want to call what the government is doing capitalism, I guess you can. But it would be just as meaningful to call it a car or goat milk.

But capitalism isn't even a system so much as it is a rule. The rules of supply and demand and how capital works and how wealth is created can't be circumvented. Eventually it will all catch up to the cheaters. The corporations and their government cronies all know this and that's why they're trying to dump all their debt on the public. And an American public pining for socialism and a break from the tyranny of capitalism (spelled big government fascism) is all too eager to gobble it up.

Suckers.

avatar

MaximumMike

double post - seems to be getting more frequent

avatar

praetor_alpha

I came across an article on The Atlantic that came to this same conclusion, but used Amazon's book sales as proof. Public domain books sell much much much better than copyrighted books.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/07/the-hole-in-our-collective-memory-how-copyright-made-mid-century-books-vanish/278209/

A book from 100 years ago is more likely to be in print than a book from 20 years ago.

avatar

Renegade Knight

There is a white paper out that looks at the best term for copyright to allow for the content creators to make an income, encourage the copyrighted contribution to the economy, and then turn things over to the public domain. That term at least for one paper was 14 years. In that world there is no need for controversial work arounds.

The paper was called "Forever Minus a Day? Some Theory and Empirics of Optimal Copyright,"