Most pro-IP arguments come from a consequential stand point that without IP, artists don't have an incentive to create whatever type of art they are in the business of creating. We have seen that in the case of music, this is complete BS.
In the last decade or so we have seen the proliferation of peer2peer sharing programs for music. Anybody with a computer and an internet connection can get pretty much any song from any artist he wants from many different sources.
Yet some how, the music industry hasn't collapsed. Artists are still making music, fans are still buying music, and artists and labels are still making amazing amounts of money (albeit smaller then before, which isn't inherently a problem). The music industry hasn't been destroyed by free music for a few reasons, including-
1) Artists enjoy what they do despite the fact that some may end up enjoying their music for free.
2) Fans have been loyal to their artists and buy copies even when faced with the chance to get a free copy from a friend or the internet.
3) Artists know #2
4) Relative to the average salary, artists (and labels) are still making boatloads of money.
The same could be said about movies and television shows, although I know less about that subject. There's many Torrent sites you can find to watch movies and TV online, yet movies are still being made and new shows keep making it to TV.
The second point deals mostly with hip hop, and I'm not sure how many fans of hip hop we have in this forum. It concerns mixtapes. Basically, a (usually young artist that isn't known well) rapper will collaborate with a DJ who provides the instrumentals to different rap songs. The rapper then does new lyrics over the beats. The DJ will play the songs at the places he DJ, and he'll usually sell the album to the local record stores. This is crucial for young artists in gaining name recognition towards putting out a major album. There are many now famous rappers out there who owe their success to mixtapes. If it were possible to flip a switch and end this illegal process, it would actually hurt the music business. Less people would be able to get their name out as new artists. People would sell less albums when they do put out their albums because they have less name recognition.
With regards to mixtapes the labels attempt to have their cake and eat it too. Many will pay a DJ to assemble a mixtape for a young rapper, and say that they are under the assumption that the mixtape is for promotional use only (wink wink) then through government funding and the RIAA they end up raiding businesses that stock the mixtapes.
Both peer2peer sharing and most mixtape practices are illegal, yet even when externalized on taxpayers it can't be stopped. We also see that while this hasn't been stopped, the music industry is still alive and doing quite well for itself, despite the claims of pro-IPers.
Monday, July 9, 2007
An alternate take
That kid in virginia killed what, 32 people?
How many have died in Iraq?
Yet, many here have argued that guns should be taken away from "regular" people, but the government agents should get to keep theirs.
Please explain this to me. Are "regular" people not killing *enough* to be allowed to keep guns? Use it or lose it?
How many have died in Iraq?
Yet, many here have argued that guns should be taken away from "regular" people, but the government agents should get to keep theirs.
Please explain this to me. Are "regular" people not killing *enough* to be allowed to keep guns? Use it or lose it?
Gun control as a force for genocide
It is often easier to see the trees than the forest.
The immediacy of a senseless killer brandishing a weapon and mowing down tens of defenseless individuals is shocking and sickening.
What doesn't strike our awareness so immediately, are the far greater mass murders perpetrated by governments upon their own disarmed, defenseless citizens.
People always think, "It couldn't happen here".
Let's take a look at a list of examples, excerpted from the following linked article. I have excerpted only the list of examples, because the article goes on various tangents which are not central to what I wish to discuss.
"The Turkish Ottoman Empire established gun control in 1911. It then proceeded to exterminate 1 and a half million Armenians from 1914 to 1917.
The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. Subsequently, from 1928 to 1953, 60 million dissidents were imprisoned and then exterminated.
China enacted gun control laws in 1935. After the communist takeover, from 1948 to 1952, 20 million Chinese, unable to defend themselves, were murdered.
Nazi Germany fully established gun control in 1938. That helped the government to round up 13 million defenseless Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill and impaired human beings. Many were imprisoned in concentration camps, then destroyed.
Guatemala passed gun control laws in 1964. Then, from 1964 to 1981, 100,000 defenseless Mayan Indians were exterminated.
Uganda established gun control measures in 1970. Predictably, from 1971 to 1979, 300,000 defenseless Christians met a similar fate.
Cambodia established gun control measures in 1956. Subsequently, from 1957 to 1977, 1 million Cambodians met their deaths. "
Lindsey
Isn't all that a lot more horrifying than what happened at Virginia Tech? It is to me.
Are you absolutely 100% convinced it "couldn't happen here"?
Should we suppose the citizens of those other countries had reasonable faith in their governments when they allowed gun control to remove their ability to deter or resist governmental aggression?
I find it slightly strange that many of the same people who bemoan the power grabbing of the Bush administration, who worry about encroaching fascist tendencies and weakening of civil rights, are still pro-gun-control. If one is worried about government fascism, why would one wish for only the government to have guns?
I'm not an AC-ist, but I am convinced that government is potentially a far greater danger to everyone than any street criminals or any rare random dangerous lunatics with a gun.
Let's take a lesson - or fifty - from history: government is the most dangerous force on Earth. Government must be restrained and the power must reside first with the People and second with the Authorities: NOT vice versa. The degree to which this becomes topsy-turvy is the degree to which everyone slides closer to the greatest earthly horror of all: that of government brutality, oppression, even genocide.
Most of us were fortunate to grow up with a relatively benign government, and in times of relative peace. THAT IS NOT THE NATURE OF THE HUMAN CONDITION ON AVERAGE. WE GOT LUCKY.
We have been soothed by our relatively safe and easy circumstances to not contemplate that government is potentially the most destructive and dangerous force on Earth. A few random madmen mean very little compared to an oppressive or genocidal government.
The average New Yorker, or Midwestern farmer, or Kentucky redneck, is not as dangerous as the average politician, or the government. The average citizen is MORE to be trusted with the power of guns than are the politicians, or often even (in my opinion) the police.
Why? Because POWER CORRUPTS. There will be bad apples in any group, but power corrupts and so there will probably be more bad use of power, by those who are powerful, than by others. By the way, if the police didn't wield such a disparate amount of lethal-force-power over the average citizen, there would probably be a lot less police brutality. I don't want to turn this into a police vis-a-vis citizens discussion, so I'm just using that to illustrate the point that power corrupts. One might even say that the tremendous physical power advantage which police hold is one of the primary reasons for police brutality. Anyway, this thread is more about guns, gun control and government, than about police; so please allow me to return to the central theme.
The best antidote against accumulation of power and its attendant corruption, is to keep power spread out and well-distributed.
Since political power at root depends upon force to ensure and enact its will, it is important to be ware of that fact and to not allow all of the force to be concentrated in the hands of government.
Government should serve the people, not rule them. The greater the forcible advantage which a government has over the people, the more that government will rule instead of serve.
The immediacy of a senseless killer brandishing a weapon and mowing down tens of defenseless individuals is shocking and sickening.
What doesn't strike our awareness so immediately, are the far greater mass murders perpetrated by governments upon their own disarmed, defenseless citizens.
People always think, "It couldn't happen here".
Let's take a look at a list of examples, excerpted from the following linked article. I have excerpted only the list of examples, because the article goes on various tangents which are not central to what I wish to discuss.
"The Turkish Ottoman Empire established gun control in 1911. It then proceeded to exterminate 1 and a half million Armenians from 1914 to 1917.
The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. Subsequently, from 1928 to 1953, 60 million dissidents were imprisoned and then exterminated.
China enacted gun control laws in 1935. After the communist takeover, from 1948 to 1952, 20 million Chinese, unable to defend themselves, were murdered.
Nazi Germany fully established gun control in 1938. That helped the government to round up 13 million defenseless Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill and impaired human beings. Many were imprisoned in concentration camps, then destroyed.
Guatemala passed gun control laws in 1964. Then, from 1964 to 1981, 100,000 defenseless Mayan Indians were exterminated.
Uganda established gun control measures in 1970. Predictably, from 1971 to 1979, 300,000 defenseless Christians met a similar fate.
Cambodia established gun control measures in 1956. Subsequently, from 1957 to 1977, 1 million Cambodians met their deaths. "
Lindsey
Isn't all that a lot more horrifying than what happened at Virginia Tech? It is to me.
Are you absolutely 100% convinced it "couldn't happen here"?
Should we suppose the citizens of those other countries had reasonable faith in their governments when they allowed gun control to remove their ability to deter or resist governmental aggression?
I find it slightly strange that many of the same people who bemoan the power grabbing of the Bush administration, who worry about encroaching fascist tendencies and weakening of civil rights, are still pro-gun-control. If one is worried about government fascism, why would one wish for only the government to have guns?
I'm not an AC-ist, but I am convinced that government is potentially a far greater danger to everyone than any street criminals or any rare random dangerous lunatics with a gun.
Let's take a lesson - or fifty - from history: government is the most dangerous force on Earth. Government must be restrained and the power must reside first with the People and second with the Authorities: NOT vice versa. The degree to which this becomes topsy-turvy is the degree to which everyone slides closer to the greatest earthly horror of all: that of government brutality, oppression, even genocide.
Most of us were fortunate to grow up with a relatively benign government, and in times of relative peace. THAT IS NOT THE NATURE OF THE HUMAN CONDITION ON AVERAGE. WE GOT LUCKY.
We have been soothed by our relatively safe and easy circumstances to not contemplate that government is potentially the most destructive and dangerous force on Earth. A few random madmen mean very little compared to an oppressive or genocidal government.
The average New Yorker, or Midwestern farmer, or Kentucky redneck, is not as dangerous as the average politician, or the government. The average citizen is MORE to be trusted with the power of guns than are the politicians, or often even (in my opinion) the police.
Why? Because POWER CORRUPTS. There will be bad apples in any group, but power corrupts and so there will probably be more bad use of power, by those who are powerful, than by others. By the way, if the police didn't wield such a disparate amount of lethal-force-power over the average citizen, there would probably be a lot less police brutality. I don't want to turn this into a police vis-a-vis citizens discussion, so I'm just using that to illustrate the point that power corrupts. One might even say that the tremendous physical power advantage which police hold is one of the primary reasons for police brutality. Anyway, this thread is more about guns, gun control and government, than about police; so please allow me to return to the central theme.
The best antidote against accumulation of power and its attendant corruption, is to keep power spread out and well-distributed.
Since political power at root depends upon force to ensure and enact its will, it is important to be ware of that fact and to not allow all of the force to be concentrated in the hands of government.
Government should serve the people, not rule them. The greater the forcible advantage which a government has over the people, the more that government will rule instead of serve.
Guns guns guns
The Virginia Tech massacre was horrible, and my thoughts and best wishes goes to all of those affected. But, and it's sad to say it this way: It is the price to pay for a society where everyone "needs" a gun.
What surprises me most is the "solutions" many seem to have after a massacre like this. I've scrolled through some of the gun-debates on this forum, and opinions like "If the students had guns, they could have taken out the killer" and "more guns makes a safer community" seems to be shared by many users.
I live in Norway in Europe. We have a very strict gun law. Even the police aren't allowed to carry guns. Some of you might now think "wow, that's stupid". Actually it's not. When the police don't use guns, criminals doesn't need to either. The result is that people doesn't get killed in stealing/robbing related cases. And if the criminal does have a gun? Well, then he doesn't feel the pressure of using it, cause nobody else is a treat. I think this is a good thing. Yes, so a criminal might get more easily away. But isn't that a better outcome than either the criminal and/or the victim getting killed because both were armed? Or someone getting killed by the police while stealing a handbag?
If I turn into some mental nut, I think the chanses are good I could get a gun in the US. I could buy one legally. I could get one from my family. Or, I could buy one from a friend or steal one. In Norway, I don't know how to start. Not even after 20 years of living here.
Many Americans seem to use the argument "but the criminals would get guns no matter what, so we might aswell allow it".
what a stupid thing to say. the harder it is to get a gun, the less likely it is that someone would get one.
and of course, if guns aren't allowed, a criminal wouldn't need a gun as much as if everybody else had it. you don't need that "edge" anymore. when everybody else have guns, say in the us, of course criminals must use guns. and it becomes a bad circle, and people get shot in the confrontations.
I think it's strange so many people doesn't agree that more guns means more gun-related violence.
Especially since almost all western industrial countries but the US has stricter gun laws AND less murder rates. I think it's pretty obvious. It's like what more proof do you need? Just look to whatever country you want that has a good, strict gun-control.
I can understand many peoples argument about being able do "defend themself", and therfore having guns. But the thing is, if guns are illegal, you don't have to.
Last year New York City had about 560 homicides. NYC has about 8 million people. Let's compare it to Norway. We have about 4 million people, so we can't compare directly. But if we take Norways number, which is about 20-30 a year, times to, we can compare the numbers. It's about 10 to 1. Sure I could compare it to Texas or California. Frankly, I don't think it would make much a difference.
Or, we could compare the US to another Scandinavian country or west european with strict gun laws. I believe the result is still alot lower than in the US.
The point is, the murder rates could be so much lower if guns were restricted.
I welcome other thoughts at this, and I respect people having other opinions. I know alot of people disagree with me, I just wanted to get it off my chest.
Thanks for reading.
What surprises me most is the "solutions" many seem to have after a massacre like this. I've scrolled through some of the gun-debates on this forum, and opinions like "If the students had guns, they could have taken out the killer" and "more guns makes a safer community" seems to be shared by many users.
I live in Norway in Europe. We have a very strict gun law. Even the police aren't allowed to carry guns. Some of you might now think "wow, that's stupid". Actually it's not. When the police don't use guns, criminals doesn't need to either. The result is that people doesn't get killed in stealing/robbing related cases. And if the criminal does have a gun? Well, then he doesn't feel the pressure of using it, cause nobody else is a treat. I think this is a good thing. Yes, so a criminal might get more easily away. But isn't that a better outcome than either the criminal and/or the victim getting killed because both were armed? Or someone getting killed by the police while stealing a handbag?
If I turn into some mental nut, I think the chanses are good I could get a gun in the US. I could buy one legally. I could get one from my family. Or, I could buy one from a friend or steal one. In Norway, I don't know how to start. Not even after 20 years of living here.
Many Americans seem to use the argument "but the criminals would get guns no matter what, so we might aswell allow it".
what a stupid thing to say. the harder it is to get a gun, the less likely it is that someone would get one.
and of course, if guns aren't allowed, a criminal wouldn't need a gun as much as if everybody else had it. you don't need that "edge" anymore. when everybody else have guns, say in the us, of course criminals must use guns. and it becomes a bad circle, and people get shot in the confrontations.
I think it's strange so many people doesn't agree that more guns means more gun-related violence.
Especially since almost all western industrial countries but the US has stricter gun laws AND less murder rates. I think it's pretty obvious. It's like what more proof do you need? Just look to whatever country you want that has a good, strict gun-control.
I can understand many peoples argument about being able do "defend themself", and therfore having guns. But the thing is, if guns are illegal, you don't have to.
Last year New York City had about 560 homicides. NYC has about 8 million people. Let's compare it to Norway. We have about 4 million people, so we can't compare directly. But if we take Norways number, which is about 20-30 a year, times to, we can compare the numbers. It's about 10 to 1. Sure I could compare it to Texas or California. Frankly, I don't think it would make much a difference.
Or, we could compare the US to another Scandinavian country or west european with strict gun laws. I believe the result is still alot lower than in the US.
The point is, the murder rates could be so much lower if guns were restricted.
I welcome other thoughts at this, and I respect people having other opinions. I know alot of people disagree with me, I just wanted to get it off my chest.
Thanks for reading.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Fascism : The Merging of State and Corporate Interests
I do not blame corporations for their crappy products. While at first glance it is obvious the corporate structure is incredibly inefficient compared to small business, the authoritarian command and control structure of a corporation is necessary in our current world. It is the only structure Reptillian and Machivelian enough to survive the economic conditions our government imposes, arbitrarily.
In a corporation, the word comes down from the head honcho, Mr. CEO and is echoed by his subordinates. At each step it bifurcates, echoing louder and louder. In this manner arbitrary conditions at the very bottom of the structure and be complexly controlled by a single man or a single board of directors. There is nothing wrong in and of itself in this structure so long as it is voluntary at every step of the way; which indeed it is. It is wrong for us to say to others what voluntary association they choose to partake in.
But I think a rational observer can see this is not going to result in the best product. When you have millions upon millions spent on advertising, well that is waste. These people create no product but they do consume the resources of the beast; ultimately this must be paid from someone. When you have CEO's getting paid 50 million dollars, I do not say this is wrong, but I do wonder who pays for it.
Often, the barriers to trade that government put for whatever idiotic reasons can only be overcome by the large corporations that exist, in large part because of that. Do people really want to pay $4 for Starbucks coffee? Or is it just too hard for the mom and pop to navigate license fees, ridiculous applications and regulations, and to pay the thousands in dollars each month the government demands each month (property tax).
In this way, governments and corporations feed off each other. Corporations are oh so willing to obey the laws and regulations of the government, the government gets the feeling that these regulations don't hurt anyone. Corporations always provide a steady source of income for the government because everything follows the law rigorously; indeed it is in the state's interest to encourage only corporations. Like war, McDonalds is the health of the state.
The solution is simple. Get rid of the government regulations and taxes that target business and watch the corporations crumble. The reason people eat at McDonalds is because the government puts all the best alternatives to it out of business.
In a corporation, the word comes down from the head honcho, Mr. CEO and is echoed by his subordinates. At each step it bifurcates, echoing louder and louder. In this manner arbitrary conditions at the very bottom of the structure and be complexly controlled by a single man or a single board of directors. There is nothing wrong in and of itself in this structure so long as it is voluntary at every step of the way; which indeed it is. It is wrong for us to say to others what voluntary association they choose to partake in.
But I think a rational observer can see this is not going to result in the best product. When you have millions upon millions spent on advertising, well that is waste. These people create no product but they do consume the resources of the beast; ultimately this must be paid from someone. When you have CEO's getting paid 50 million dollars, I do not say this is wrong, but I do wonder who pays for it.
Often, the barriers to trade that government put for whatever idiotic reasons can only be overcome by the large corporations that exist, in large part because of that. Do people really want to pay $4 for Starbucks coffee? Or is it just too hard for the mom and pop to navigate license fees, ridiculous applications and regulations, and to pay the thousands in dollars each month the government demands each month (property tax).
In this way, governments and corporations feed off each other. Corporations are oh so willing to obey the laws and regulations of the government, the government gets the feeling that these regulations don't hurt anyone. Corporations always provide a steady source of income for the government because everything follows the law rigorously; indeed it is in the state's interest to encourage only corporations. Like war, McDonalds is the health of the state.
The solution is simple. Get rid of the government regulations and taxes that target business and watch the corporations crumble. The reason people eat at McDonalds is because the government puts all the best alternatives to it out of business.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)