Archive for the 'Politics' Category

government sponsored monopolies

Published on 18 September 2009 in Copyright and Politics. 1 Comment
I believe as a moral issue that people shouldn’t really own intellectual property; though I’m not convinced that our founding fathers were wrong to include limited monopolies as an incentive to get greedy bastards people that wouldn’t normally share their ideas with society to do so. So while I don’t fully agree with everything on Against Monopoly, I do agree that our current system isn’t promoting progress as well as intended. And that website is definitely worth a visit.
I’ve discussed this issue with Becky before, and she has argued that if you create something, it is yours, and you should be able to have exclusive control and profit over your creation. If someone else uses it without your permission, then it is “stealing”. Though I believe I just now realized what Techdirt means when they say this is not a zero-sum game — ideas are not taken from you when they are shared, they build on each other. If you share an idea with someone, and they share an idea with you, you both end up with more than you when you first started. Our society progresses by building on the accomplishments of those that came before us.
Copyrights (and also patents, though they’re still limited to 20 years; and while in some cases even that may be too long, that’s a different discussion) were originally designed to promote the progress of arts and sciences, not to provide an indefinite cash flow to whoever came up with (or paid for) the idea first. Even without copyrights, there are still people that would create and contribute their ideas; but copyrights should simply give those that wouldn’t normally contribute some sort of incentive to do so.
There need to be realistic limits on copyright, so that our current and future generations can build upon contemporary knowledge. The current protections we are providing are effectively preventing the sharing of some ideas indefinitely. If every single piece of art, literature, or science that is created during our lifetime never, ever reaches the public domain during our same lifetime, isn’t that effectively an unlimited copyright from our perspective? Yes, works that are created before our generation might enter the public domain, but again from our perspective, they may as well have been created hundreds of years ago.
Again, I am not convinced we should abandon copyright entirely, because the idea is to get as many people to contribute to society: those that would contribute anyway, and those that need an incentive to contribute. It is for that same reason that I am against our indefinite copyright system — we need everyone to contribute their ideas to society, and not keep it to themselves for eternity. I’m not against compensating people for their efforts; and Techdirt does a great job explaining scarce vs. infinite goods. While this post may not convince anyone to my way of thinking, hopefully I at least did a good enough job explaining why I believe the way I do.
This example is probably overused, but it is really a perfect example of sharing ideas and freedom of expression: Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.
Simply awesome.

eulas, oh my!

Published on 21 March 2009 in Copyright and Garbage. 4 Comments

I am relieved to finally stop using that Lexmark printer. Those crappy ink cartridges that cost $5 more than HP’s? The reason I harbor so much hatred for those little pieces of plastic, is that they not only stop working after they’ve dispensed a set amount of ink (even if there happens to be a gallon of ink left in them — sorry, you’ve already used your 2 ounces), but they actually have an end-user license agreement (the infamous EULA) on the packaging, which you agree to simply by purchasing the cartridge.

So basically, as I understand it, Lexmark is claiming that you are renting their shoddy piece of trash, and it’s illegal for you to use it in any other way than they see fit (aka – refilling the cartridge yourself). And when you’re done with it, they want you to return it to them, so they can refill it and sell it for another 60 trillion dollars. And, I think they might have actually won a DMCA lawsuit recently against someone that was either trying to hack their cartridges to be refilled or make non-Lexmark cartridges that would work in Lexmark printers.

Well, I need to go license (not buy) some Sunkist oranges soon — my Sunkist orange juicer won’t operate without the software chip they embed inside the orange peel. And if I hack some other brand of oranges to work with the juicer, I could get fined $100k per orange and up to 5 years in prison. My point, don’t buy from Lexmark until they stop this garbage.

UPDATE: Lexmark lost the DMCA suit, but won an almost identical suit under Patent law, based on the fact that the ink cartridge boxes are labeled with, “Single Use Only.”

Arizona Prop 102

Published on 21 November 2008 in Politics and Religion. 2 Comments

A friend recently posted his opinions on California’s Proposition 8. I was going to post a comment on his site, but it got a little too lengthy, so I thought I’d explain here why I voted NO on Arizona’s proposition 102 in 2008; why in 2004, I also voted no on Utah’s Constitutional Amendment 3; and, had I lived in California in 2008, would have voted no on Proposition 8.

I believe marriage is a religious issue, not a legal one. The legal issue at hand is not allowing any two parties, regardless of gender, to enter into the legal contract that our society currently defines as marriage. Just as the government should not be allowed to force religious organizations to accept same-sex relationships as moral, they should also not be allowed to force others NOT to accept same-sex marriages.

If I want to start a church that believes a marriage between a man and man or a woman and a woman is acceptable, and set up religious leaders to perform marriage ceremonies — are these amendments not a violation to my first amendment right to religion? Many people involved in same-sex relationships may really feel that they have a spiritual connection to god; and I believe it isn’t right to tell them they are not allowed to have different religious beliefs than me.

Now let me concede one point (this is mostly for those people that adamantly support these amendments): I do agree (and I would say any logical person would also agree) that regardless of how our society ultimately defines the actual word “marriage,” it will not magically make same-sex relationships procreative ones. While I do understand that many people who voted in favor of these amendments would possibly still support “civil unions” between same-sex couples, I believe the same argument of equality still applies, and any legal contracts also need to go by the same name.

Maybe the government could stop recognizing any of these contracts as marriages; and then, whatever name they do come up with would need to be the same, regardless of the couples’ gender; and all benefits (taxes, medical, adoption, pensions, estates, etc.) need to be extended equally. I’m even fine with the government continuing to allow marriage ceremonies performed by religious groups to automatically bind couples into this legal contract, but then religious groups that perform same-sex marriages should again be extended that same right.

Or, I have a great idea — why not let the government call these contracts whatever the hell they want (i.e. marriage), while at the same time not forcing any religious group to accept same-sex marriages as morally right? I don’t understand why people can’t separate the two: drinking and smoking are legal, but at the same time the government still allows religious groups to limit their members’ admittance to certain ceremonies based on these criteria.

We don’t need a thousand or so new laws and amendments added to our books to “solve” this issue. And as long as the Constitution is still around, you will always have your religious right to believe same-sex marriages are immoral. If the Constitution ever does disappear, then your precious state amendments banning same-sex marriages probably won’t hold any weight, anyway.

Just let these people get married and get over it.

horde vs alliance

Published on 1 October 2008 in Garbage and Politics. 2 Comments

I’m sick and tired (ooh, that reminds me I need to write another entry soon after this) of people talking about how media is grossly biased one way for either liberals or conservatives. Here’s what someone I know recently said about media bias: “Yes the right has it’s [sic] share too, but not NEAR the volume.”¹ Now this is entirely speculation (and oh, how I love to speculate (ideas, not oil), but I’ve come up with a hypothesis I think I’ll call “the horde vs alliance effect” (I hate to use this game to compare to real life, but it’s a super awesome analogy, in my opinion). And I am in no way saying media bias does not exist, because it absolutely does.

Basically, no matter which side you pick, everyone seems to complain that the other side significantly outnumbers or outperforms the side you’re on. If you play horde, you hear (or even make) continuous complaints that the alliance are too good, that they cheat, that horde can never win, and vice versa. While on some servers in the game this could possibly be true, the company that runs the game has confirmed that wins and losses are split extremely evenly between the two sides.

I would be rather surprised if this wasn’t also true in nearly every aspect of real life, including media bias.

1. Bennion, Karl-Erik. Used without permission. 3 September 2008. Accessed 1 October 2008. http://kebstuff.com/?p=128

who needs progress?

Published on 20 July 2008 in Copyright and Politics. 1 Comment

For those that know me, I sometimes tend to beat this subject into the ground; but I’ve found two quotes that express my views on copyright much more eloquently than I have been able to express in the past:

The first just happens to be from our very own Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8:

“The Congress shall have Power … To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

The second quote is from Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (and she was even restating what another judge had said in 1975; I’ve included her citation from her decision):

“The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but ‘[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.’ Art. I, 8, cl. 8. Accord, Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151, 156 (1975).” — O’Connor, Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991), emphasis added

election day is almost here…

Published on 14 November 2006 in Computers, Copyright and Politics. 0 Comments

Well, it will be election day in a week ago.

I realize this is such a timely entry, but I still wanted to post it. I decided to vote for my last time in Utah (unless I decide to move back, which is entirely possible given the right financial situation); I will be losing my status as a Utah resident well before election time comes around again. And I fully intend to vote here in Arizona when it does.

From the previous paragraph, you can safely assume that my house, wife, and kids are still in Utah. I’ve just received two callers interested in buying our town house, and unfortunately for the current real estate market, had to assure them that my asking price was negotiable. In any case, I hope one of them decides to call back to make an appointment to see it (and, of course, buy it).

While I’m sure my family life is incredibly interesting, I’m sorry to inform you that this entry will more likely cover a topic from the title, probably elections.

It appears that Utah’s billion year incumbent, Orrin Hatch has been re-elected to the U.S. Senate. I tried to get my family and friends to vote for the candidate running against him, Pete Ashdown, but it appears it was too little, too late; hopefully in 6 years, Mr. Ashdown can make himself well-known enough to get our (well, Utah’s, not mine anymore) incumbent out of office.

My wife mentioned that Utahans likely feel that he is getting things done, and I really do hope that is the case, but he has made a comment before that I very much disagreed with. This news is incredibly old, but it’s the reason I looked for another candidate in the first place: Hatch made a statement a couple years ago (long enough ago not to have affected the election enough to lose) that some sort of technology should be invented to destroy the computers of those committing copyright infringement (specifically, downloading movies, music, or other media online without consent of the copyright holder). While the topic of copyright is a large enough topic for 50 trillion more entries, I’ll try to stay focused on why I chose to vote against Hatch.

There are many of Hatch’s policies that I agree with, a few including: allowing media to be edited (specifically, removing offensive content) for resale, stem cell research, tax cuts, and tax reform. Hatch claims to be pro-Constitutional, which I assume is a conservative view that the government only holds the rights specifically given to it by the people, and no more. Unfortunately, his comments about destroying a person’s property without being proven guilty doesn’t seem to fall in line with ”due process” of the fourth amendment. Even though he eventually retracted those comments, it still seems as though he temporarily set aside the fact that this government is required to assume innocence until proven otherwise.

Don’t get me wrong, if probable cause of copyright infringement can be shown, I have no problem with the courts issuing a warrant to determine if any infringement has actually happened (including the confiscation of the property in question, but not the desctruction or permanent confiscation before a guilty verdict).

I don’t really like the use of the word probable, as most people understand it today. Probable cause means that you have pretty damn convincing evidence showing this person committed the crime (fortunately, many judges do still understand this); and not that they “probably” (id est, “might have”) committed the crime.

And the biggest reason I chose to vote for Pete Ashdown, is because he truly listens to the people (or at least does a pretty dang convincing job of it). On his own website he encourages communication on issues by the community (using a wiki), and when he feels they have reached a good conclusion, makes it part of his official policy. The great thing is that these policies are contributed by the people, not just solutions Ashdown has come up with off the top of his head. Because I also agree with the majority of Ashdown’s policies, he was the perfect candidate for me to choose.

However, I do strongly believe that people make mistakes they regret, and are completely entitled to change their opinion, even on extemely important issues; new information can completely change the circumstances on which you may have previously based your former opinion. Since Orrin Hatch is now Intellectual Property Subcommittee Chairman, I sincerely hope he realizes the error, and works towards intellectual property reform that will protect the consumers as strongly as the copyright holders. I would really still like the ability to “own” a book, movie, game, or song (id est, all art); I don’t want to end up in a world where art can only be “rented” (aka, licensed) by consumers.