dilemmanade
Thursday, February 16, 2012
What Kevin Drum doesn't understand
Piracy is a "snarl" word, meant to inflame emotions and derail reasoned argumentation, and not at all an accurate description of file sharing or even for fraudulent representation (selling unauthorized imitations as real) for that matter, neither of which are what pirates did or were famous for, anyway.
There's profiting illegally from someone else's work, and there's sharing what you have. Giant Corporations, the IP rentiers, would like you to think of them as the same, but they are not. People who share or have been shared with are not pirates. You can call people who make unauthorized copies of CDs or DVDs and sell them pirates, though it's a stretch-- they're actually committing fraud, they are effectively forgers, selling unauthorized imitations. But people sharing things they paid for, or sharing what others have shared with them is not piracy by any reasonable definition. Sharing should not be illegal even if sharing is less complicated with digital files than with physical objects. The fact that you can share a copy, while keeping your original, makes the activity more attractive to the people sharing, but it doesn't change the nature of the act from sharing to stealing.
(It is only because Microsoft and others got us used to their income model, enforceable at all only because they are a great big giant monopoly who can stay one step ahead of hackers, and intimidate other institutions, that has us taking seriously at all the idea that sharing digital files should be outlawed.)
There should be no laws against possessing or sharing digital files. There are already laws against fraudulent sales of knock-offs of commercial products.
Copyright laws were never intended to stop people from sharing (hello, libraries!), and they are not able to stop people from sharing (hello, cassette tapes and photocopiers!), they are there to stop people from stealing other people's potential revenue streams through fraud and forgery (selling your copies as originals).
A different state of technology requires a different profit-making model. CD and DVD manufacturers should make products so good that people want the commercial CD or DVD with all the trimmings/guarantees/support/extras/whatever.
The fat cats will just have to deal with it.
Artists' compensation is not the issue. Seriously, unless they're established superstars, they don't make much in the way of mechanical royalties. That all goes to guys in suits. Artists have to play for live audiences to make a living, and file sharing grows their potential audience. It's possible to imagine scenarios where someone might have made some money but file sharing kept it from happening, but it's not common, if it happens at all. |
Piracy is a "snarl" word, meant to inflame emotions and derail reasoned argumentation, and not at all an accurate description of file sharing or even for fraudulent representation (selling unauthorized imitations as real) for that matter, neither of which are what pirates did or were famous for, anyway.
There's profiting illegally from someone else's work, and there's sharing what you have. Giant Corporations, the IP rentiers, would like you to think of them as the same, but they are not. People who share or have been shared with are not pirates. You can call people who make unauthorized copies of CDs or DVDs and sell them pirates, though it's a stretch-- they're actually committing fraud, they are effectively forgers, selling unauthorized imitations. But people sharing things they paid for, or sharing what others have shared with them is not piracy by any reasonable definition. Sharing should not be illegal even if sharing is less complicated with digital files than with physical objects. The fact that you can share a copy, while keeping your original, makes the activity more attractive to the people sharing, but it doesn't change the nature of the act from sharing to stealing.
(It is only because Microsoft and others got us used to their income model, enforceable at all only because they are a great big giant monopoly who can stay one step ahead of hackers, and intimidate other institutions, that has us taking seriously at all the idea that sharing digital files should be outlawed.)
There should be no laws against possessing or sharing digital files. There are already laws against fraudulent sales of knock-offs of commercial products.
Copyright laws were never intended to stop people from sharing (hello, libraries!), and they are not able to stop people from sharing (hello, cassette tapes and photocopiers!), they are there to stop people from stealing other people's potential revenue streams through fraud and forgery (selling your copies as originals).
A different state of technology requires a different profit-making model. CD and DVD manufacturers should make products so good that people want the commercial CD or DVD with all the trimmings/guarantees/support/extras/whatever.
The fat cats will just have to deal with it.
Artists' compensation is not the issue. Seriously, unless they're established superstars, they don't make much in the way of mechanical royalties. That all goes to guys in suits. Artists have to play for live audiences to make a living, and file sharing grows their potential audience. It's possible to imagine scenarios where someone might have made some money but file sharing kept it from happening, but it's not common, if it happens at all. |
Monday, February 13, 2012
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Fear, Loathing, and a Contest
After the Republican presidential candidates quit arguing about who among them is the most anti-choice, anti-immigrant, anti-gay, anti-social safety net, anti-environment and so on, their many super PACs will be unleashed on Obama.
The unlimited spending combined with plausible deniability brought to us by the Citizens United decision will bring us a barrage of deceitful and incendiary ads the likes of which has never before been seen.
Think we're polarized now?
By November, low information "conservatives" (scare quotes because they don't want to conserve anything that came about after 1929) will be foaming at the mouth. Obama is already a socialist Muslim granny-killing foreigner to them. I shudder to think what kind of monster those super PAC ads will paint him to be.
It won't mean Obama won't be re-elected. He will, because the totals won't be close enough for the Republican voting machine hackers to alter. Probably he will win in a landslide.
But the people who went batshit insane last time he was elected will be madder, much madder, when he's been re-elected. They will have spent months absorbing vicious attack ads with little relation to reality.
I don't want to sound like a doomer, but I find this more than a little worrisome.
That said, I suggest a contest: what new outrageous claims about Obama will be made next summer and fall by super PAC ads? Winners will receive a free copy of Critique of Capitalism for Kids (the deluxe! print edition).
I'll start things off:
*Obama is secretly an abortion doctor, with a clinic in the White House basement
*Obama is building re-education camps for NASCAR fans
*Obama will implement forced sterilization of Christians
Your turn. |
After the Republican presidential candidates quit arguing about who among them is the most anti-choice, anti-immigrant, anti-gay, anti-social safety net, anti-environment and so on, their many super PACs will be unleashed on Obama.
The unlimited spending combined with plausible deniability brought to us by the Citizens United decision will bring us a barrage of deceitful and incendiary ads the likes of which has never before been seen.
Think we're polarized now?
By November, low information "conservatives" (scare quotes because they don't want to conserve anything that came about after 1929) will be foaming at the mouth. Obama is already a socialist Muslim granny-killing foreigner to them. I shudder to think what kind of monster those super PAC ads will paint him to be.
It won't mean Obama won't be re-elected. He will, because the totals won't be close enough for the Republican voting machine hackers to alter. Probably he will win in a landslide.
But the people who went batshit insane last time he was elected will be madder, much madder, when he's been re-elected. They will have spent months absorbing vicious attack ads with little relation to reality.
I don't want to sound like a doomer, but I find this more than a little worrisome.
That said, I suggest a contest: what new outrageous claims about Obama will be made next summer and fall by super PAC ads? Winners will receive a free copy of Critique of Capitalism for Kids (the deluxe! print edition).
I'll start things off:
*Obama is secretly an abortion doctor, with a clinic in the White House basement
*Obama is building re-education camps for NASCAR fans
*Obama will implement forced sterilization of Christians
Your turn. |
Monday, May 02, 2011
Memo to Fellow Urban Hellhole Drivers
I figure that the ubiquity of video games-- the fact that most people driving today played car racing games before they learned to drive-- has contributed mightily to the aggressive way people drive in My Urban Hellhole (TM Atrios). People seem to treat driving like a game.
It's as if you get points for every car you pass, which is why some people constantly change lanes or use the right turn lane to pass. And it's as if you lose points for every car that passes you, which is why people resist allowing others to change lanes if it means the other car will end up in front of them.
Driving being a game is why people speed up and go through lights turning red, even though they're probably going to end up stopped at another red light a couple of blocks later with the same car in front of them and the same car behind them.
And it's why the posted "maximum speed limit" is actually a minimum speed limit. If someone were to drive around My Urban Hellhole (TM Atrios) at less than the maximum speed limit, it would seriously annoy people.
And I suppose it's why people hate cameras at intersections. Shouldn't you be allowed to cheat and get away with it if there are no cops around? There are no cameras at intersections in car racing video games!
All that being said...
Car horns are loud. Really loud. On purpose. So that in an emergency using them will have a great and instant effect on other drivers. When you lay on your horn because someone hasn't noticed the light has changed, or you think they should go but they don't, or whatever, that horn makes a Really. Big. Noise.
Now, you may not know this, but I drive around with my window down because I don't have air conditioning. I also don't have a car stereo (long story). The person you are honking at may have their windows up, their air conditioning blowing, and be listening to music. And yes, the long loud blast of your horn will surely cut through all that ambient noise and alert them to your distress that they aren't moving.
But your horn might be only a few feet from my open window, and thus my head, and thus my ear. And when it is, that blast about blasts me right out of my car. I instinctually try to leap out of my seat; it's fortunate that I am restrained by the shoulder harness and seat belt, but even so, I am seriously rattled.
Fellow Urban Hellhole dweller, why not tap your horn once quickly? And if the offending party doesn't respond to your satisfaction, tap slightly longer twice. Build up to the long loud blast so I have time to shut my window or move away.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
I figure that the ubiquity of video games-- the fact that most people driving today played car racing games before they learned to drive-- has contributed mightily to the aggressive way people drive in My Urban Hellhole (TM Atrios). People seem to treat driving like a game.
It's as if you get points for every car you pass, which is why some people constantly change lanes or use the right turn lane to pass. And it's as if you lose points for every car that passes you, which is why people resist allowing others to change lanes if it means the other car will end up in front of them.
Driving being a game is why people speed up and go through lights turning red, even though they're probably going to end up stopped at another red light a couple of blocks later with the same car in front of them and the same car behind them.
And it's why the posted "maximum speed limit" is actually a minimum speed limit. If someone were to drive around My Urban Hellhole (TM Atrios) at less than the maximum speed limit, it would seriously annoy people.
And I suppose it's why people hate cameras at intersections. Shouldn't you be allowed to cheat and get away with it if there are no cops around? There are no cameras at intersections in car racing video games!
All that being said...
Car horns are loud. Really loud. On purpose. So that in an emergency using them will have a great and instant effect on other drivers. When you lay on your horn because someone hasn't noticed the light has changed, or you think they should go but they don't, or whatever, that horn makes a Really. Big. Noise.
Now, you may not know this, but I drive around with my window down because I don't have air conditioning. I also don't have a car stereo (long story). The person you are honking at may have their windows up, their air conditioning blowing, and be listening to music. And yes, the long loud blast of your horn will surely cut through all that ambient noise and alert them to your distress that they aren't moving.
But your horn might be only a few feet from my open window, and thus my head, and thus my ear. And when it is, that blast about blasts me right out of my car. I instinctually try to leap out of my seat; it's fortunate that I am restrained by the shoulder harness and seat belt, but even so, I am seriously rattled.
Fellow Urban Hellhole dweller, why not tap your horn once quickly? And if the offending party doesn't respond to your satisfaction, tap slightly longer twice. Build up to the long loud blast so I have time to shut my window or move away.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Labels: Car Horns, My Urban Hellhole (TM Atrios), Video Games
|Monday, March 28, 2011
There is no middle class, there never was a middle class.
A class that is not self-conscious is only a class in a purely indexical sense. Minerals can be classified by hardness, and people can be classified by income. But it doesn't make the middle class a class in the way the European aristocracy or the serfs who supported them were classes.
What we have is groups with special benefits: groups who do not relate to one another, do not see their interests as intertwined, and do not work together.
An example of a group with special benefits is an army, or a police force. They impose or maintain order, they protect the interests of the rich, and they get pretty good pensions. But they don't see themselves as middle class in the sense of having interests that are aligned with those of other working people.
Similarly, doctors are not middle class, they are doctors. They don't have the idea that they are in a struggle with their industrial worker brothers and sisters to get a fair share. Mid-level managers are not middle-class, they are mid-level managers. They competed with other workers for their positions, and feel no loyalty to workers in general. Farmers are not middle class, they are farmers. They don't see their fates tied up with those of public employees.
And so on, and so on.
So when the rich-- with the help of the craven politicians they've bought and the phony think tanks they've funded-- start picking us off one group at a time, the other groups are not there showing solidarity with their fellow "middle class" Americans.
For the most part, none of the people in any of those groups realizes their incomes ultimately depend on each other's income. If everyone in the middle class except doctors is made poor, doctors won't be able to command the incomes they do. Doctor's should be fighting for public employees in Wisconsin (as well as fighting for decent Medicaire reimbursement). If everyone in the middle class is made poor except for farmers, demand will fall, prices will fall, and farmers won't be able to command the incomes they do. Farmers should be screaming for the repeal of NAFTA (as well as demanding price supports).
And so on, and so on.
Finally, make no mistake about it: The attempt to undermine Social Security in particular and the social safety net in general is part of a long term plan by the rich to destroy the "middle class" altogether. (They don't think they need a middle class.) That safety net is what keeps "middle class" people from falling into poverty if they suffer a job loss or a family illness, etc. Every one of the "middle class" groups with special benefits should be determined that the attempt not succeed.
It is likely in our genes to have social stratification. So whether a society calls itself capitalist, socialist, or nudist we will enrich some, impoverish others and have groups with special benefits. Fine. And there will always be an ebb and flow with each group growing or shrinking because of material forces and the arc of history. Fine. But a society can aim to have few rich and few poor.
The rich are not as wise as they are greedy. If we don't rein them in, they will destroy the "middle class", which will destroy America as we know it-- destroy it for them as well as us.
A class that is not self-conscious is only a class in a purely indexical sense. Minerals can be classified by hardness, and people can be classified by income. But it doesn't make the middle class a class in the way the European aristocracy or the serfs who supported them were classes.
What we have is groups with special benefits: groups who do not relate to one another, do not see their interests as intertwined, and do not work together.
An example of a group with special benefits is an army, or a police force. They impose or maintain order, they protect the interests of the rich, and they get pretty good pensions. But they don't see themselves as middle class in the sense of having interests that are aligned with those of other working people.
Similarly, doctors are not middle class, they are doctors. They don't have the idea that they are in a struggle with their industrial worker brothers and sisters to get a fair share. Mid-level managers are not middle-class, they are mid-level managers. They competed with other workers for their positions, and feel no loyalty to workers in general. Farmers are not middle class, they are farmers. They don't see their fates tied up with those of public employees.
And so on, and so on.
So when the rich-- with the help of the craven politicians they've bought and the phony think tanks they've funded-- start picking us off one group at a time, the other groups are not there showing solidarity with their fellow "middle class" Americans.
For the most part, none of the people in any of those groups realizes their incomes ultimately depend on each other's income. If everyone in the middle class except doctors is made poor, doctors won't be able to command the incomes they do. Doctor's should be fighting for public employees in Wisconsin (as well as fighting for decent Medicaire reimbursement). If everyone in the middle class is made poor except for farmers, demand will fall, prices will fall, and farmers won't be able to command the incomes they do. Farmers should be screaming for the repeal of NAFTA (as well as demanding price supports).
And so on, and so on.
Finally, make no mistake about it: The attempt to undermine Social Security in particular and the social safety net in general is part of a long term plan by the rich to destroy the "middle class" altogether. (They don't think they need a middle class.) That safety net is what keeps "middle class" people from falling into poverty if they suffer a job loss or a family illness, etc. Every one of the "middle class" groups with special benefits should be determined that the attempt not succeed.
It is likely in our genes to have social stratification. So whether a society calls itself capitalist, socialist, or nudist we will enrich some, impoverish others and have groups with special benefits. Fine. And there will always be an ebb and flow with each group growing or shrinking because of material forces and the arc of history. Fine. But a society can aim to have few rich and few poor.
The rich are not as wise as they are greedy. If we don't rein them in, they will destroy the "middle class", which will destroy America as we know it-- destroy it for them as well as us.
Labels: clas warfare, social safety net
|Friday, March 11, 2011
And Now For Something Completely Mundane
1: Billboards are effective (else businesses wouldn't use them).
2: Being effective, they necessarily divert peoples' attention.
Conclusion: They should be illegal where they would be visible to drivers.
The fact that billboards are not illegal where they would be visible to drivers, that nobody would ever seriously consider making them so, demonstrates that we are stupid or bat shit insane.
And forget about "that would be social engineering." Billboards are social engineering. We allow them to do it to us just because they have the money.
And forget about "that would be infringing free speech." It's a stretch to define companies as people and advertising as protected speech, but even if you do then the public has a right to limit the where and when of it.
Oh, and think how much more pleasant our cities would be without them. Just sayin'. |
1: Billboards are effective (else businesses wouldn't use them).
2: Being effective, they necessarily divert peoples' attention.
Conclusion: They should be illegal where they would be visible to drivers.
The fact that billboards are not illegal where they would be visible to drivers, that nobody would ever seriously consider making them so, demonstrates that we are stupid or bat shit insane.
And forget about "that would be social engineering." Billboards are social engineering. We allow them to do it to us just because they have the money.
And forget about "that would be infringing free speech." It's a stretch to define companies as people and advertising as protected speech, but even if you do then the public has a right to limit the where and when of it.
Oh, and think how much more pleasant our cities would be without them. Just sayin'. |
Friday, November 19, 2010
Hard Choices
America, we face some hard choices.
We must either raise taxes on the rich, after three glorious decades of cutting them, or else make old people work till they drop, abandon the unemployed, and generally allow the middle class to be ground into the dirt.
We must either re-regulate the bankers and corporations, after three glorious decades of deregulating them, or else just let them have or ruin just about everything once and for all.
We must either have national health care, after valiantly defying the industrialized world's trend toward civilization, or let the insurance companies suck the economy dry while we fall further behind in longevity and infant mortality.
And so on. |
America, we face some hard choices.
We must either raise taxes on the rich, after three glorious decades of cutting them, or else make old people work till they drop, abandon the unemployed, and generally allow the middle class to be ground into the dirt.
We must either re-regulate the bankers and corporations, after three glorious decades of deregulating them, or else just let them have or ruin just about everything once and for all.
We must either have national health care, after valiantly defying the industrialized world's trend toward civilization, or let the insurance companies suck the economy dry while we fall further behind in longevity and infant mortality.
And so on. |
