GOP Brief Attacks Current Copyright Law 296
cervesaebraciator writes "Regardless of how one feels about the GOP generally, it is always heartening to see current copyright and IP law questioned on a national stage. A Republican study committee, chaired by Ohio Representative Jim Jordan released a brief today titled Three Myths about Copyright Law and Where to Start to Fix it. Among other things, the brief attacks current copyright law as hampering scientific inquiry, penalizing journalism, and retarding the potential of the internet to allow the dispersion of knowledge through e-readers. In the briefs words, 'Current copyright law does not merely distort some markets – rather it destroys entire markets.' Four potential policy solutions are proposed: statutory damage reform, expansion of fair use, punishing false copyright claims, and limiting copyright terms. There may yet be hope for a national debate on the current oppressive copyright system, if just a fool's hope."
Not really the GOP ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Where were the Democrats ?? (Score:2)
Unfortunately, a Republican study committee != Republican policies and platforms.
Granted, a Republican study committee is not necessary equal to policies and platforms adopted by the Republican central committee.
But then, - and I am saying this as an independent, I ain't a Republican - where were the Democrats?
How come the "study committee" ain't the "Democrat study committee" instead?
Credit where Credit is due. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure it is, give credit where credit is due.
Okay, I'll give credit to the EFF for promoting these principles for the last 22 years, and Socrates for proposing the concept of the freedom to share ideas.
To be honest, I think theyr'e both just posers that stole ideas from others, but I don't know THEIR names.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would moderate you positively, but you started your post with "Um..." Therefore you are a gobshite who shan't post any more until you have joined a civilised society and learned proper communication skills. That said, your abuse of the word "hypocritical" makes me wonder if you are primarily an English typer. Allow me to elucidate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the original copyright law was stated as existing for the progress of learning. (Queen Annes Statute).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Og. The guy who invented the wheel and didn't try to patent it. Come to think of it, if you used a lot of technical mumbo jumbo like "circular device for lessening friction in transport," the idiots at the Bureau would probably grant it.
Actually it was patent # 2 (after fire)
The full 'text' of the patent (writing not having been invented yet) was 'round thingy'. Fortunately this was before the invention of the patent lawyer so there were no infringement suits, although Og did club a few people who tried to steal his wheel idea.
The wheel HAS been pateneted, recently (Score:3)
Here, take a look [newscientist.com].
Other nonsense patents include a kids' swing. It happens all the time. That's a broken system.
Re:Credit where Credit is due. (Score:5, Insightful)
The majority of the current batch might not, but it's by no means the case that this is a Republican vs. Democrat issue. Lamar Smith, who sponsored SOPA, is a Republican in a gerrymandered district. Most of the people who took down SOPA in committee were Democrats. Pat Leahy, a Democrat, sponsored PIPA, SOPA's sister legislation in the Senate.
Point being, if this is an important issue to you, pay attention to which party is likely to win in your district, and register for that party and vote in the primary. Try to get one of the candidates in the primary to take positions in favor of some of the ideas mentioned in TFA. Work to get that candidate to win the primary.
Seriously, this is that rare issue where neither party has a strong position for or against, so it's entirely possible to get enough people to vote in favor of changing the law to be less in favor of copyright holders. But you have to actually work at it—it's not enough to grouse about it on Slashdot.
Re:Credit where Credit is due. (Score:4, Funny)
But you have to actually work at it—it's not enough to grouse about it on Slashdot.
Dang! That's my social activism career shot down in flames.
Re: Nice rational and intelligent argument ;-) (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It is my understanding that under certain circumstances, goos can get into cunts. Best to beware of goos, I'm thinking, if one is blessed with ladybits.
Re:Not really the GOP ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Read the article (Score:5, Interesting)
I've got mod points at the moment, but rather than oblivionate the current pathetic trolls, flamebait and fr1st p0st crap, I'd rather encourage some thought.
Re:Read the article (Score:5, Interesting)
Agreed. I read GOP and immediately thought the worst but what I found was a well thought out article that actually acknowledges the problems and lays out some very interesting reforms that could actually make the system better.
Re:Read the article (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps it helps that the republicans don't have so many ties to Hollywood and the entertainment industry.
Probably not as much as you might think. First off, the docket is already jam packed with more pressing matters, such as the fiscal cliff and credible long term budget and tax reforms; not to mention the fact that the economy is still lousy for many Americans. Second, Hollywood really pulled out all the stops for Obama this time around, raising money and entertaining the President and their lefty friends in swanky mansions nestled in the Hollywood hills. They raised millions for Obama and it would be very e
Re: (Score:2)
First off, the docket is already jam packed with more pressing matters, such as the fiscal cliff and credible long term budget and tax reforms; not to mention the fact that the economy is still lousy for many Americans
That's now. The legislative split after the election is nearly the same as before and there's two more years until the next round. Plenty of time to get to it before then.
Hollywood really pulled out all the stops for Obama this time around, raising money and entertaining the President and th
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't need no stinkin' article! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This same congressman wanted to force the US to default on our debts, which would have caused complete economic collapse. At the same time, he pushes for unnecessary military spending on tanks that the Pentagon doesn't even want, because guess who's district they get made in. And on top of that, he's one of those Republicans who claims to support small government while simultaneously thinking it has a role in the bedroom.
In short, he's a vile little hypocrite, who happens to be right on this one issue. N
Keerist. Partisan, much? (Score:2)
You sound like you think Democrats are better.
News flash: politicians, like broken clocks, are right once in a while. Broken clocks have the advantage of being otherwise useless, while politicians actively get in the way.
Re: (Score:2)
I live in the US but I am not a citizen so I tend to somewhat follow US politics but not very closely. This is one of the first times where it seems a republican actually thought about his claim. I haven't finished reading it yet. But what he says seems reasonnable!
Though, at the back of my mind a voice says: "there must be an evil agenda somewhere!"
Argghhhh! (Score:4, Funny)
It's a PIN, you bloody heathen!
Holy Cow! (Score:5, Informative)
I haven't even read the whole thing yet, but I was sort of astounded to read this from paper:
By Jove! I think he's on to something here.
Re:Holy Cow! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Holy Cow! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a bit of a fine line, because what will often promote the progress of science and useful arts is compensating the people who produce useful work so they can produce more of it by devoting themselves full time to it. And if they are compensated more for producing more and better work, they are more likely to produce more and better work.
While I certainly accept that concept, what I think is being said is that copyright law is first and foremost intended to foster innovation. If that means compensating authors and/or copyright holders, so be it, but remember that the compensation is the means to an end and not the desired end itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright law is, and always has been, about protecting the interests of the publisher/distributor/writers guild(transcribers), rarely, if ever about about the creator/author of works.
Re:Holy Cow! (Score:5, Funny)
It's almost as if there should be some carefully balanced compromise that strikes a balance between rewarding content creators while remaining beneficial to society at large. Perhaps a limited monopoly could be granted to the creator for the work before it passes into the public domain for all to benefit.
Re: (Score:3)
Seems reasonnable. 640K years seems enough for everybody.
Re: (Score:2)
640K years seems enough for everybody.
I like that idea! Hand out 640K years of copyright, total. As time goes by and years expire and are returned to the 640K year pool, auction them off to the highest bidder.
By George, I LIKE this idea!
Re: (Score:2)
If you RTFA, that is exactly the conclusion it draws. There is a fine balance between rewarding the creators and benefiting society. I think one of the great solutions proposed (funny, because I was just discussing this exact idea with someone a couple of nights ago) is to offer the opportunity for incremental increases in copyright term FOR A FEE.
This really is a win-win situation, because the public benefit either way. If a rights holder believes that there is still enough value to hold a copyright, th
WTO requires Berne (Score:2)
I think one of the great solutions proposed (funny, because I was just discussing this exact idea with someone a couple of nights ago) is to offer the opportunity for incremental increases in copyright term FOR A FEE.
The one problem here is that the WTO includes TRIPS, which includes the Berne Convention, which prohibits member countries from requiring a formality to maintain copyright.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, like Van Gogh was motivated by the fortune he made from his works to make more.
Van Gogh (Score:4, Funny)
Let me enlighten you about Van Gogh's art and motivation using the traditional slashdot car analogy.
Van Gogh's finest art is functionally equivalent to NASCAR: 24 hours of continuously turning left, if done well, he hoped would result in a snuggle from a ring girl, specifically, Rachel. In order to enhance his left turns, he removed his left ear, thus creating a ground-hugging vacuum on the left and so enhancing his turning ability.
This made him quite dizzy; the result was "Starry Starry Night" [wikimedia.org], a veritable opus of left turns, which of course we now treat as a cultural treasure.
Alas, Rachel, who was left holding the ear, was not so easily impressed.
* There's gonna be a quiz tomorrow
Re: (Score:2)
RIght. So you'll produce a copyrighted work for $K. There is some value N such that you will not bother to produce the work for $NK. There is some value X such that, if you are paid $XK, you will postpone working on your next work, because you don't need the money. So in fact the original poster is right—the basis for the debate has to be whether the copyright law promotes science and the useful arts. If it is too weak, it won't. If it is too strong, it likewise won't. It has to be Just
Re: (Score:2)
That's a bit of a fine line, because what will often promote the progress of science and useful arts is compensating the people who produce useful work so they can produce more of it by devoting themselves full time to it. And if they are compensated more for producing more and better work, they are more likely to produce more and better work.
But the trick is not to pay them too much for sitting on their asses doing nothing. Otherwise they may choose to retire and just live on their royalties instead of making more creative works. Not everyone is infinitely greedy.
Re: (Score:2)
True enough, but only if they don't give up in despair due to the harmful effects of the same laws.
Re: (Score:2)
It might be a fine line, but a lot of the legislation around copyright isn't anywhere near the line, so it doesn't matter how fine it is. Stuff like extending copyrights to death of author plus 100 years - how much incentive is that providing for content creation? How much incentive is it when somebody's copyrights never expire, and this they can live of a single popular piece of work without ever creating another one?
Re: (Score:3)
Actually that's completely wrong. People who are compensated more for more work end up at some point being content with what they were able to get. The result is they don't perform to their full potential. And people who are compensated *too much* for their work just rest on their laurels.
What's needed is to compensate people just enough to make them feel that they could achieve
rationale behind a PMA copyright term (Score:2)
But how is someone supposed to keep producing for 70 YEARS beyond their death?
My guess is that the rationale behind a PMA (life-plus) copyright term is that the author's estate is supposed to publish previously unpublished works and produce restored editions of published works.
Disney (Score:2)
Um, if it contains language that strongly worded against profit and entitlement, then you'd better believe Disney has made some phone calls today to mobilize some serious lobbying power and see what strings can be pulled by other lawmakers that they have influence over. Without a doubt.
This is not that surprising ... (Score:4, Funny)
Also, I would love for my sarcastic comments to be proven wrong.
Re:This is not that surprising ... (Score:5, Insightful)
See this is the bullshit. Why is this jackwad getting a 1 from some slashdot fairy for engaging in mindless partisan bomb throwing? What he wrote is approved group think so he (or she) get a pat on the head?
It is easier when you understand that much of this comes from the frustration of never really feeling represented by anyone in Washington. Especially when the facts are so well-established and becoming more and more obvious. Copyright is just such an issue.
The War on (some) Drugs is another such issue. What that and copyright have in common is that the current laws just aren't working, this is obvious and well-known to anyone who looks into it, and there is no serious effort underway to reform the system.
He even labelled his comments as "sarcasm" and said he would like to be proven wrong. He was rather transparent about it. That's why the context surrounding it must also be considered, otherwise you really would just think he's engaging in mindless partisanism.
Badly written, but essentially correct (Score:2)
Limit copyright to payment (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the most useful reform would be to stop granting copyright owners any control over their work except for the purpose of getting paid. The owner should not have the right to restrict distribution or use of his work in any way as long as it was legally purchased. Likewise, he should not have any control over derived works except for getting a cut of their sale equal to the current market value of the work multiplied by the fraction of the original work used in the derivation. So anybody should have the right to write a Harry Potter novel as long as Rowling gets a cut for whatever fraction of the book's value is assigned to characters.
Re:Limit copyright to payment (Score:5, Insightful)
Unenforceable. Who sets how much it worth? it also has huge implications for undermining long-term financial health of projects and properties.
A better solution would be shorter copyright terms attached to renewal-with-conditions. Say, everything gets an automatic ten years when it is created. After that it can be renewed in ten year increments for a moderate fee, up to a maximum or 50 years or something. As part of the renewal process a high quality copy or representation must be provided to the copyright office, to be made available (probably for a moderate fee again) after the copyright has expired.
So, as long as the creators are actively profiting off their creation they can keep on controlling it. Once it is no longer in active use it falls into public domain, with a high quality copy available.
Re:Limit copyright to payment (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you see the world of music collapsing due to statutory mechanical licensing rights? Of course not. And you're always free to negotiate a lower rate if you have a big project. A basic set of statutory amounts for previously published works is a good idea. It prevents artificial scarcity, such as the Disney Vault, and plain scarcity where it's impossible to get a copy of what would otherwise be an unremarkable product due to limited publishing runs.
Re: (Score:2)
"artificial scarcity, such as the Disney Vault, and plain scarcity where it's impossible to get a copy of what would otherwise be an unremarkable product due to limited publishing runs."
As a parent, it seems to me that the Disney Vault is almost designed to create piracy. Think about it—most Disney "classics" are only released once every seven years, IF that. When you have a kid, and you figure that Disney movies are what you want to have on while the kid is sick, what are you going to do once you've
Re:Limit copyright to payment (Score:5, Interesting)
I've seen this argument before - making the copyright terms shorter - and I agree with it.
Yet that aspect of copyright is rarely actually railed against by the masses. If anything it tends to only be cited - usually with a sneer at Disney and its copyright on Mickey Mouse - as a general attack on copyright without actually being related to their concerns.
I.e. it is not that the author of a comment has had this long-lived dream of making a Mickey Mouse work and is only prevented from carrying out this task due to the life+dozens of years+etc. of copyright resting on the character. They have no direct interest in this.
They may argue that because of that copyright term, however, others are unable to produce such works, which deprives society-aka-them of such works, which they would want to have made.
Unfortunately, however, if such a work were eventually made, the main reason for railing against copyright tends to be encountered. The work - let's say it's a new Mickey Mouse movie - is released into theaters, gets out on DVD a few months later, immediately gets ripped by 'pirates' to a nice MK4 and released to the rest of the world.
It is this latter activity - the file sharing of a work, regardless of age - that most comment authors feel should not draw the (legal) ire of copyright holders, citing a multitude of arguments.
So in essence, to most of these comment authors, a reduction in the copyright term is really just symbolic - a way to let others, producers, editors, publishers, etc. who would be easy copyright infringement targets to no longer be a valid target - as to their own purposes the copyright term is essentially deemed moot.
Note that it is rarely 5+ year old material that is 'pirated', and rarely such older material for which 'pirates' are targeted for legal action; it tends to be more recent material, from 'only released on DVD a few months ago' to 'not even playing in theaters yet - leaked workprints'.
Making the copyright term shorter would do nothing for this group, except reduce the number of times it would be brought up as an argument that does not actually speak against or in favor of their actual sentiment.
Re: (Score:2)
You're technically right, but wrong in a broader and more important sense.
The excessive scope and duration of copyright, along with the theory of copyright that is pushed by the content industry, give individuals very little moral reason not to infringe.
As the brief points out, the true purpose of copyright is to advance the progress of science and the useful arts, by providing some temporary incentives. In other words, it's a dynamic balance: society voluntarily agrees to restrict its own freedom wit
Re:Limit copyright to payment (Score:5, Interesting)
Note that it is rarely 5+ year old material that is 'pirated'
Perhaps people don't want to fund a system they don't think is fair? I buy both BluRays and DVDs sometimes, not because I needed to but because it's good stuff that I like and that I want them to produce more of but I hate that I'm funding DRM. I hate that I'm funding the lobbying groups who want copyright to be infinity minus a day. I hate that I'm funding the people strong-arming ISPs to become their private enforcement branch. I hate that I'm funding the people pushing for copyright enforcement outside the justice system, with no real oversight or due process. I'm a pirate if I download it today, in 5 years or in 50 years. Might as well get it over with...
Re: (Score:2)
"Making the copyright term shorter would do nothing for this group, except reduce the number of times it would be brought up as an argument that does not actually speak against or in favor of their actual sentiment."
Not correct, many industries live of remakes of older works and the copyright allows them to lock up and send lawyers after fan made works. You see this especially in videogames where a videogame company has practically abandoned a property for decades and fans attempt to remake it and then get
Mary Bono... (Score:2)
Now that she's out, maybe something can get done.
Interesting move, Republican Party! (Score:2)
So this is how the Republican Party is going to try to move now that super-conservative has failed. How interesting!
Re: (Score:2)
Useful protip: That wasn't super-conservative. That was RINO lite.
Re: (Score:2)
The Republicans need to do something. They have won the popular vote only once in the last 6 presidential elections.
The current platforms aren't helping either - the demographics of the voters they are attracting is unfavorable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Jobs and a balanced budget? Holy shit, that's some funny stuff. The straight Republican line has always been that the government can't create jobs. And a balanced budget? You do know that we're in this fucking mess because at the first sign of a surplus to pay off the debt, the Republicans put in a 10 year tax cut that wiped out every single dollar of surplus that would have retired the debt? And while they were giving the surplus back, instead of cutting costs they super-finded the military and decided to
Re: (Score:2)
> Tax cuts often wind up increasing revenue rather that decreasing it for reasons anyone that has stayed half-awake through an intro to economics class should know.
Funny the economics classes I took said that revenues with a tax cut IF the marginal taxation rate is over 50%. Otherwise revenues are decreased. Now that of course has to be corrected for baseline economic growth and inflation.
So now what do we have from a historic point of view? Did Kennedy's tax cuts result in more revenues after correction
GOP Respones to Elections (Score:2)
You Hollywood folks backed the wrong guy. So now we're going to pull the rug out from under you.
Re: (Score:2)
Just 1 out of 4 potential policy solutions (Score:5, Insightful)
YES. That one alone would go a long ways towards leveling the playing field between individuals and huge corporations.
We shall see (Score:2)
Sounds like a good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Sad that most of Slashdot is against it because of the colour of their ties.
Getting rid of crony capitalism corporatism is more important that rep or dem.
Re:Sounds like a good idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Sad that most of Slashdot is against it because of the colour of their ties.
Have you been reading the same comments that I have? As I'm not quite certain where you discovered that most everybody opposes it...
Did I vote for the wrong party? (Score:3)
Two articles about republicans talking copyright reform and anti-SOPA in a single day...
Normally when politicans talk freedom it is in the form of maximizing "freedom" for their donating constituents with big pockets...I must say on the surface I'm impressed.
This country is in dire need of sane copyright and patent laws...and there is plenty of low hanging fruit like repeal of mickey mouse protection act.
Re: (Score:2)
The anti SOPA proposals were from a Democrat.
Perhaps.... (Score:4, Insightful)
They should have proposed this prior to the last presidential election? Or made a point to mention it during the debates? It's quite possible they might have swayed a few votes their way. Guess that was too risky?
The Policy Brief has been Yanked (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most likely, they're just interested in destroying that liberal bastion of big bucks, Hollywood.
Re:If it's a GOP brief (Score:5, Insightful)
If that were the case, a simple IRS audit of their expense reports would blow it away from orbit.
Re: (Score:2)
Aye. Hollywood gets their gravy from copyright abuse but their real money is still on creating new IP. Practically no one is seriously talking about removing Copyright in its entirety from the law. The main problem is the excessive terms copyright applies to and difficulty in enforcing it for the little guy.
Re:If it's a GOP brief (Score:5, Insightful)
Aren't you thinking of a Libertarian? I've never met a Republican who advocated no taxes at all. Republicans are not Libertarians any more than Democrats are socialists.
Re: (Score:2)
Prior to redistricting, Jim Jordan was my representative. He is as conservative as they come - voted against all the bailouts, even Bush's bailout. Yes, he predates the "tea party", but fit right in. Of course he wouldn't fit as a Libertarian, being pro-life and opposed to drug legalization, but on tax issues and "small government" he'd fit right in. I consider myself a Libertarian, but had no trouble voting for him.
Re:If it's a GOP brief (Score:5, Interesting)
In that case I'm guessing that you have never actually met a Libertarian. I am a Libertarian myself and I don't believe in any taxes at all. So I guess I'm an existence proof. Libertiarians object to taxes, not for practical reasons, but for philosophical ones. We believe that collecting taxes, any taxes, is a form of protection money, a form of legalized thievery and is morally repugnant. I think you will find that 99% of actual Libertarians agree with me too. I wouldn't really consider a Libertarian who believes in taxes to be a Libertarian at all. Keeping relationships voluntary (voluntarism) is at the very core of the philosophy.
The biggest difference between Libertarians is how we feel that a "government" should raise money.
Limited government Libertarians mostly believe that the government should raise money via some form of voluntary contribution.
Anarcho-Libertarians mostly believe that the essential government functions can be funded via payment for services rendered. Either after the services have been rendered or in advance, or as a form of insurance. Free riders are simply ignored or forced to pay on the rare occasion that they may personally need such a service.
I have been both types at various times and I think either method is fine. Whatever works. As long as you aren't sticking the barrel of a gun in someone's face to fund your projects it's all good. Most people will claim that funding a government without the use of force is impossible. Libertarians simply disagree.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't believe in paying taxes, why pay them? You are perfectly free not to pay taxes just like many other transactions. All you have to do is not take the benefits that paying taxes gives you and you don't have to pay them.
This is the problem with Libertarians, the ultimate entitlement culture, everything should be free and if someone demands payment it's so unfair.
Do you go grocery shopping, then bitch about having to pay? Do you buy on credit then bitch about having to pay? It's a fact of life, whe
Re:If it's a GOP brief (Score:5, Insightful)
You weren't born into a society that was set up to increase your survival chances? You didn't grow up fairly safe due to society making it so the odds of you growing up were fairly high? You didn't get educated? You didn't live on land that was stolen by society? You have never benefited by having food delivered over the road system? You have never benefited by being able to go to work? You have never benefited from having a workplace to go to?
The list of benefits that you have received is huge.
If you don't want to use government services, quit working, get dropped off on a random piece of the Alaska highway and live without government services.
You seem to believe that you haven't benefited from society and live separate from society. Proof it, quit using anything supplied by society and you won't have to pay taxes.
Re:If it's a GOP brief (Score:5, Informative)
Government is the reason you are alive.
If it weren't for government, a polluter would have no reason to not poison your air or water supply for his profit (power).
And because they are profitable (powerful), they have the power over you to force themselves about it.
So, your government steps in and makes sure you are safe and sound, by limiting other people's powers.
Did you thank government for your protection? You should.
Taxes are the protection money we (society) force you to pay to allow you to live with us. You do not get to live in our land for free. That is because every human is territorial, and we are the rulers of the land. It doesn't matter what YOU "believe" in. What matters is whatever WE do, since the decision on taxes is not yours to make, as only those with power can make decisions, and libertarians are the weakest in society. If you don't like it, feel free to move to another country. It is why we don't charge taxes for citizens of other countries, because we (government) don't own other sovereign states. But if we did, we'd charge them protection money (taxes), because we want the benefits of wholesale purchases that governments can do but individuals cannot.
Additionally, libertarians just aren't very smart socially. This is actually their biggest flaw - their disbelief in social groups. All humans seek to gain power, including you. It is why you're here on this board promoting your views. And they form power through social groups, from families to governments. But, you actually have to curry favor to other members of society in order to form groups. A normal person offers favors to others in order to receive favors back, to grow their group of power. Libertarians assume that everyone will be nice to them and offer them services without offering people favors. Sorry, but human psychology doesn't work this way. No one owes you anything, including your human rights. You do have to be actively protect yourself, which means you have to curry favors with others, through groups (governments) in order to just exist. This isn't just a theory, it is how political science works. Groups are always stronger than individuals. Generals follow this rule in war. Sales people use the same social group theory to grow their power. Girls find guys that are more powerful to marry. And so on.
Meanwhile, the correct answer, and the answer that all of society is actually based on, is socialism. The world revolves around groups, not individuals. The statement that no man is his own island is always true. And if there single-people islands, larger groups would come in and take it over or test atom bombs on them or whatever the fuck they want to do with it. You are therefore dependent on others (government) for your own basic survival. Libertarians just don't know that yet. They're obviously not supercomputers that can model all of society in their head.
Basically Libertarians are people that just didn't think their cunning plan all the way through.
I totally get where you're coming from, but every time I talk to libertarians about their mistaken worldview they simply get mad because I don't make the same mistaken assumptions they make. No libertarian has ever walked their cunning plan all the way through to me. Ever.
Also libertarians are always the spoiled brats that do not appreciate the benefits of government. And every psychological profile of a libertarian show them to be spoiled brats.
They love themselves too much.
So, yeah, don't be libertarian. And don't have "beliefs". Ever.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You only have a house and property due to government (they stole it and allow you to use it) and you have to pay. You have as much choice about whether to use society as you do about whether you can live without groceries. If you take the groceries, you're expected to pay and if you take advantage of society, you're expected to pay. Either way you have the choice of not eating store bought stuff or taking advantage of society.
Re: (Score:3)
But what about law enforcement? Who'd pay for that?
Let's say a family is murdered. They have no living relatives. Who pays for finding,trying and punishing the murderer?
Re:If it's a GOP brief (Score:5, Interesting)
We believe that collecting taxes, any taxes, is a form of protection money, a form of legalized thievery and is morally repugnant. I think you will find that 99% of actual Libertarians agree with me too. I wouldn't really consider a Libertarian who believes in taxes to be a Libertarian at all. Keeping relationships voluntary (voluntarism) is at the very core of the philosophy.
The "protection" racket works because you're buying "protection" against the very people you're paying off. The "civilization" racket works because you're buying protection against other people.
Communism failed because people aren't sufficiently virtuous to work their hardest without material incentives. Capitalism fails because people aren't sufficiently virtuous not to damage their customers and employees. A government-free system fails because even at the neighborhood level there are people who'd rather bypass the whole farce and take directly from you unless you combine with or delegate people to defend you from them. Once you do that, you've gotten into the government business. Even a volunteer fire department requires more than just a bunch of people with buckets. It requires capital equipment investment, ongoing maintenance, and the assurance that everyone won't not show up when needed.
Most of us cannot spare the time from our primary pursuits to fulfill the daily needs of a peacekeeping force. Few of us can afford upwards of $250000 for our very own personal fire engines, for that matter. So in lieu of other means, we pay money. Since people are also not virtuous enough to contribute freely for the common good, we levy an assessment and call it "taxes".
If you live in an area where such amenities exist and don't contribute in some way, you may call yourself a Libertarian, but other people will call you a Parasite.
If you don't want to pay, move somewhere where these benefits aren't available. Do be aware, however, that no matter where you go, someone is almost certainly claiming prior ownership of the place you arrive and is almost certainly investing in the ongoing privilege of keeping people like you from just waltzing in and taking it.
Re:If it's a GOP brief (Score:5, Interesting)
Considering that hollywood gets massive taxbreaks and have since the 1950's? Sounds fine to me, for all the cries from the left of the rich "needing to pay their fair share" the hollywood elite don't, and neither do movie, or TV production companies.
Re:If it's a GOP brief (Score:5, Informative)
Think you have that reversed, at least regarding copyright. Chris Dodd, architect of SOPA, was democratic. Most of the underhanded legislation to extend copyright and push US style copyright laws on other governments is from the Democratic side of the aisle.
Not saying the GOP doesn't have its own share of monopolistic asshats, but you're clearly wrong on this count.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Everybody knows: Democrats are Entertainment and Republicans are Banking/Industry.
While a gross simplification it pretty well describes the overarching legal policies of both sides regarding industry (outside of 'social' or 'religious' related reform.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, I haven't seen any evidence recently that the democrats aren't just as supportive of the military front as the republicans.
Re:If it's a GOP brief (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed, it's through Biden that the RIAA/MPAA infiltrated the Justice Dept with their lawyers:
http://gizmodo.com/5146966/riaa-and-bsas-favorite-lawyers-taking-top-department-of-justice-posts [gizmodo.com]
And also I believe it is under Obama that I saw the first domains "seized by government" screens but not 100% sure:
http://www.domainnamenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Screen-shot-2010-07-02-at-4.11.43-PM.png [domainnamenews.com]
Al Gore's wife in the 90s and Hillary Clinton in the 00s also wanted some type of ban on violent video games "for the children". Republicans do suck on a lot of things but the Democrats take the cake here as well.
Re:If it's a GOP brief (Score:5, Informative)
Think you have that reversed, at least regarding copyright. Chris Dodd, architect of SOPA, was democratic.
SOPA was introduced to the House by Republican Lamar Smith. He was also its biggest proponent.
Most of the underhanded legislation to extend copyright and push US style copyright laws on other governments is from the Democratic side of the aisle.
Wrong. DMCA was introduced to the House by a Republican. The Copyright Term Extension Act, AKA Sonny Bono Coyright Extension Act, was introduced to the Senate by Republican Orin Hatch. Oh and Sonny Bono was a Republican. The Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act was also introduced to the Senate by Orin Hatch. The Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act was also introduced by Orin Harch. I could go on and on about Republican-introduced copyright extension and copyright scope increasing acts. It's a myth that this is a heavily Democrat thing.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Prove it, or admit that you're lying. Those are your only possible choices.
And no "they're Republicans" is not proof, and yes, that is what you were going to say.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:If it's a GOP brief (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent is modded troll - despite the fact that we see both parties working hard to extend draconian copyright laws?
The "rights holders" have carte blanche in treaty negotiations, as evidenced with ACTA and NPP. These so-called "rights holders" work around the clock to write ever more restrictive treaties, that will trump national laws around the world. Nations with reasonable laws will be bullied into signing these treaties, then be required to enforce the measures in the treaties.
Troll? If Mozumber's post is a troll, then I'm a troll as well.
The GOP cannot claim innocence in any aspect of what is going on in the copyright/patent wars.
Re:If it's a GOP brief (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree; you are not a troll. I suspect that the parent was modded troll because he acted as a provocateur, charging the GOP with representing monopolists as though it were peculiar to the GOP. Your statement was far more reasonable in that it recognized both parties can be thus implicated.
I do not say this to exonerate the GOP, nor is this a false equivalence. The fact that people habitually act as though one side or the other has sole responsibility for the problems we face is part of what allows those problems to persist (i.e. when the consequences arise, both parties always have a scapegoat). The cure to this problem is, as far as is possible, to praise and punish those lawmakers who do good or ill according to the good or ill they do. When some lawmaker says we need copyright reform because our current system, we will never get anywhere by saying, "Well, that's coming from a member of the [fill-in-party-here]." If I have a problem with the absurd wars started under Republican administrations, I'm not going praise Joe Biden [senate.gov] for being a Democrat. If I've a problem with deficits, I'm hardly going to support Paul Ryan [house.gov] on account of Republican rhetoric.
Re: (Score:2)
Following up an unsubstantiated allegation with a possible truth does not make the initial allegation true.
In case that's too complex for you, here's the Sesame Street version: [citation needed].
We're waiting...
Re: (Score:3)
Heh, if you'd read the article, you would see he's actually proposing government taxation of copyright, which is pretty nuts for the far right americans.
I hate to agree with a republican, but I actually go with him on pretty much everything in this article.
Re: (Score:3)
Seems like you have a closed mind. You're all-knowledgeable about what people who don't share your beliefs stand for. Are you unique in this world? I sure don't have the ability to get into the minds of people whose views I oppose. Yet somehow you can.
You must be a liberal.
Maybe he does have a closed mind, maybe he doesn't.
But you definitely should not be against something until you understand it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well maybe we can compromise: How about we put a sane upper limit on how long works can remain under copyright? Right now things stay under copyright long after the author's death.
Re: (Score:2)
"Throwing money at education doesn't work!"
This is undeniably true. Look at the disastrous quality of education in Washington DC.
Factiod: Texas spends about $6.82 per hour to educate children in K-12 Factiod: Average price of a baby sitter in Texas: $9.00 per hour over all, $12.50 per hour in urban areas.
I was unaware that a babysitter would be willing to babysit 20 to 30 kids at the same time for $9 per hour. That'd be no more than 45 cents per kid per hour!
Factiod: Average pay of a letter carrier: 58,700 USD (no degree required) Factiod: Average pay of a Texas K-12 Teacher with a bachelor's degree: 42,890 Opinion: The person that teaches your child to read should make at least as much as the person that brings them the mail.
First, we'll just accept that the high wages of postal carriers may be related to the fact that the US Postal Service is losing billions of dollars a year and in danger of going bankrupt. Lets move on to a comparison. There are only 180 school days in a school year