Well that's a mouthful. You are ignoring my concessions that i make at the very beginning of my post. i explicitly state that the data is not free to create, it is merely free to publish and distribute. That is the point.
I also explicitly state that PHYSICAL PRODUCTION IS WHERE PEOPLE WILL SPEND THE MONEY THEY SAVE FROM THE LOW PRICES ON THE INTERNET.
also my last post in this thread says that the trade deficit is not solvable by my idea, i say that it is a piece of it. Oil is the majority of it.
But your contention of "free shit" and getting rid of copyrights and other IP protection, effectively says "I want free shit". Physical production is *EXACTLY* how much of the trade deficit? It is minuscule. Real stuff made in China is the bulk of the trade deficit outside of oil.
I think you disagree with my politics, and likely despise anti-authority or IP opinions. I happen to play music and don't buy your story. I think the kid didn't get it because you are trying to explain it from the anti-socialist point of view. Did Elvis not take someone elses songs and make them famous? He didn't write them, don't you think he took advantage of them? haha
I do despise your idiotic anti-authority and IP opinions, merely because they are nonsensical. You just want "Free shit" and to enjoy the fruits of other's labors, talents, and ideas, without paying a penny for them. That is not only outright theft, but intellectually and morally dishonest and, at the core, communist in many ways (the community has the rights to everything).
Elvis didn't "take" anything, he used songwriter's talents to create songs, as almost all artists did back then, including Frank Sinatra, and was a performer/singer/artist in his own right. Those songwriter's received compensation for their talents through royalties or outright payments up-front. Stupid argument is stupid. What's funny is that you thought he got it for free because all you want is "Free shit".
I support valve because they are not an evil corporation, they spearheaded the move AWAY from the centralized corporate (cartelized) development mentality and gave a platform to independent game developers. They can avoid publishing and distribution costs and their games cost $15 not $60. Their cloud does not disallow you from using their content because you still hold the data on your hard drive. That is not the case for Google, apple, amazon, itunes. So your comparison parameters are not up to grade.
Dude, Valve was railed against for Steam because it tracked everything. Their games still cost more and the small developers don't produce the higher quality games, thus they have to charge less.
I forgot that iTunes doesn't store info on your hdd and that the songs aren't yours to use as you wish on several ipods, in your car on your ipod connected through an ipod or aux cable, as you jog in the middle of the desert with no 3g, or as you hide up a mountain with no 3g. It's all cloud based...
More "free shit" mentality.
Also
CD's, games, and dvd's are shit people buy at walmart you fucking moron. it is all IMPORTED. IMPORTED OIL IS the trade deficit. My guess is you have NO idea how the treasury markets influence the price of oil and debt repayments.
People don't go to Wal Mart to stock up on CDs, games, or DVDs. Ever look at how big the electronics department is compared to everything else? Electronics is usually less than 20% of the store size and likely about the same amount in revenue, adjusted for average purchase price (units, not price). THe bulk of their China-shit sales comes from clothes/shoes/accessories, cheap paper towels/tp, cheap car shit, cheap lawn ornaments...etc.
Again, you put everything into your "Free shit" perspective without actually having any data. Obviously the trade deficit HAS to be fueled by marginal value-added stamping of CDs and not creation of clothes or shoes. Fuck, get some perspective in life.
It was not me that compared Valve to Google and apple it was Forbes magazine.
No, but you use it as a way to compare it to their obviously flawed business models, it is a major underpinning of your argument.
I am in a graduate program for economics and politics.
So, a theoretical non-real world doof. Long on theories, short on practical application.
Work is not an end. Work is the means and if you can take a slimmer means, then why not. I know well how capitalism works (
mises.org).
Show me one capitalist system that has survived, thrived, and still exists that touts the moronic application fo mises theories. If it were better, then by its very nature it would still exist, right? I'm sure you'll spittle out some "but..but...but...brainwashing!!!" bullshit. Sorry charley, doesn't work.
You are stressing the importance of what is called the "free rider" dilemma. I do not think that is a real thing when it comes to things like information. My contention that it is free is simply an exaggeration of what is in reality a minuscule price point. The "freeness" of information is a function of its super-abundance. You can create a song in your house, then upload it to the internet and have it spread to every country in the world in an hour. That is very different than saving money and getting CD's pressed then shipping them EVERYWHERE.
Wow, so now you're going into supply/demand, good information isn't in abundant supply. That's why your blog is free while real data and ideas aren't.
Do you think it was right for Michael Jackson to own the Beatles songs? and profit from radio stations using them? Wouldn't it make sense that after the beatles are no longer alive or care to own the tracks themselves that to save the economy money and to further production in new directions that royalties diminish? The radio stations can stop giving Jackson money for songs Lennon wrote and they can buy new songs. Michael Jackson was acting literally as an economic leech from their talents. SO who is the capitalist?
Copyright laws came into existence, not to protect intellectual property, but to restrict speech. In France, there were very popular pornographic pamphlets that people used to recite lines that were embarrassing to the monarch and the queen and undermined their authority. So the queen made laws that restriced their use to that of the authors.
Absolutely I think it is right for him to own the Beatles songs. They tried to dodge taxes by putting the songs into a public company which was then bought out. Their loss, his gain. He wasn't an economic leach, they produced something, he bought the production, people found value in the production and paid money for the songs, not the media. That is capitalist.
Ironically, you rip on Elvis in the beginning, yet even Lennon said that before Elvis there was nothing. McCartney said that everybody wanted to be Elvis. Obviously they saw the talents and wanted to emulate them, obviously for profit and the market wanted that product.
Who is the non-capitalist in your desire to NOT pay somebody for their product?
So because they were originally used for nefarious purposes they are all evil? Well, what a moronic idea. I think you should stop using the internet now because it was originally built by the government, for the communication between military installations, specifically, nuclear weapons silos and command centers. Please, just stop.
Thomas Jefferson argued against the moneyed restriction of information as well. Read his letters from France home during the constitutional convention. He argued that you can obtain others work (he was talking about books and copies of them), add your own value and not harm the ownership of the original.
Why do people think that using Thomas Jefferson as a paragon of sound money, fiscal policy, and business prowess is practical? The guy was an awesome philosopher, but couldn't put anything to use. His ideas were pie-in-the-sky, like yours. That's why he was a failed farmer, failed nail maker and overall failed financially in his life. He constantly spent more than he could take in, even with many slaves. He died insolvent and owing banks, businessmen, friends, and family gobs of money.
As a President, he continually expanded the power of the Executive, contrary to his teachings and almost bankrupted the country with the LA Purchase (assuming debt, contrary to his writings). Don't prattle on about Jefferson.
Also, you didn't mention freeware and shareware. Have you heard of those? That is where computer software originated. In the realm of free.
No, computer software originated by corporations making operating systems and applications for the government, big corporations and eventually companies like MS and Apple charging for them. Freeware/shareware were always a very small portion of the population, mainly because they weren't worth much or had niche products.
Also, try and mask your anger with a spell check. Hope your panties are Ok.
let me guess, you are a dad, probly 42-45? that is unsatisfied with the wife, job, dumb/ugly kids, maybe your whole life? go hunting you fucking redneck. I'd peg you at: never read a book in his life, just stares at the grey wall at the factory blaming poor people and foreigners for all the woes in life. Cause he lacks the mental functionality to do read into economics.
I didn't see anything spelled wrong. Boxers are just fine, thanks.
wrong on all other parts.
