The Logician's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
from the logic-please dept
Greetings. I have been invited to share this week's digest of favorite posts -- in this case, mine -- and as the logical choice was, of course, to accept, I have chosen to do so. In thinking about how to proceed, I have arrived at the conclusion that to effectively reach and deter those who would threaten our fundamental rights, we must first understand how they think, and why it is that they do so. I have, therefore, selected a number of posts, which, I believe, help to illustrate the fallacies and shortsightedness by which they operate, as well as the motivations which drive them. Let us begin:
First is textbook example of government/corporate propaganda -- one which should be saved for future study in understanding the difference between such posturing and actual, ethical journalism. It comes in the form of a video released by ICE in which they congratulate themselves on the numerous incidents of censorship they were responsible for last year, while making multiple dishonest and highly illogical claims and omissions, all of which Mike clearly illustrates and dissects. Such as ICE's deceptions about job losses, conflations between counterfeiting and infringement, the yearlong censorship of dajaz1.com, and their inability to admit that the PSA that they used on the sites they censored was, in fact, made by Universal.
A recent study has confirmed what many of us already know: mainstream media news outlets have all but completely ignored SOPA/PIPA. This is, of course, logical in that these news outlets are owned by the very mega-corporations which support these laws. It also highlights how neutered the mainstream media has become in that they no longer answer to us, but only to those in power and will no longer make an honest effort to keep them in check despite that being the original mandate of their existence. It is but one facet of the merger of corporation and state that has taken place in this country.
Rep. Lamar Smith's continuing and irrational deafness to all opposition to SOPA has recently resulted in the creation of a poster illustrating this very point. His unwillingness to admit just how widespread the opposition actually is merely shows where his loyalties and interests truly lie -- himself. However, as Mike has pointed out, ignoring such opposition will not cause it to disappear. Rather, it continues to grow on an almost daily basis, despite the state of denial in which Smith and his fellow SOPA supporters continually exist.
Another group that exists in a perpetual denial of reality is the TSA. They recently posted their list of top ten catches for 2011, not one of which was an actual terrorist. They boast about accomplishing, in reality, nothing, in a vain attempt to justify their own existence. But as anyone who has followed their actions over the last several years with a clear and logical mind understands, they crossed that line long ago. Even the founder of the TSA has admitted that the organization is a failure. Yet this parasitic organization is allowed to live on due to government hysteria over a threat that is far less of a danger to anyone than they will ever admit. That and the desire for control, a trait they share with those who support SOPA/PIPA and other laws like them.
Desperation is another characteristic of SOPA/PIPA supporters and copyright maximalists, as was shown at CES this week. Sandra Aistars from the Copyright Alliance spent much of her time at the SOPA/PIPA panel -- which Mike, himself, attended -- invoking vague and broad talking points, accusing those who challenged her of the very same empty rhetoric and hyberbole she herself was consistently using. Much as politicians do, she relied on nonanswers and doublespeak rather than actually addressing the questions asked of her. She did not even seem to realize that the very sites which SOPA/PIPA were designed to target are immune to the bills due to their own convoluted language.
SOPA supporters also tend to exhibit a hypocrisy rivaled only by that of politicians, of which many are one and the same. For instance, an opinion piece in the Salt Lake Tribune pointed to by the MPAA and its lobbying front/astroturf group CreativeAmerica, was actually in large part copied directly from statements made by other pro-SOPA lobbyists and remixed to form the op-ed. This behavior is not wrong in and of itself, and yet SOPA supporters wish to criminalize it. They partake of the very behavior they claim to oppose, which merely illustrates that they have little to no understanding of human nature or the nature of creativity. Their motives, then, do not involve the preservation of creative works, but rather the preservation of their bank accounts.
Lastly, even libraries have begun to come under fire, through no fault of their own. The major publishers have been supporting SOPA/PIPA, and, in so doing, have deliberately begun attempting to limit what libraries can do. These publishers have begun steadily withdrawing the access to free content which libraries have traditionally provided. In contrast to libraries' fundamental purpose, they wish instead to commercialize them and replace the traditional structure with a rental model which they would undoubtedly seek to control. As I see it, any attack on libraries is an attack on knowledge itself and cannot be allowed to stand.
We have seen that the maximalist mindset which drives those who support SOPA, PIPA, and laws like them is one driven by deception, denial, greed, hypocrisy, and an irrational need for control. C.S. Lewis once observed in The Magician's Nephew that "the trouble with making yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed." Humans have an uncanny capacity for convincing themselves of almost anything, as Lewis' Uncle Andrew character clearly illustrates. Andrew did not wish to believe that Aslan and the Narnian animals could talk, and he believed it so strongly that he could not hear them do so. The same is true of maximalists. They have convinced themselves so completely of their view -- either through money, power, ignorance, or a combination of them -- that even when shown the actual data in plain language, they will not accept it. That is the mindset that must either be changed or overcome, if our rights and freedom are to be restored and protected.
(untitled comment)
What is most illogical is the presence of a for-profit medical system in the first place. Human beings have an inherent right to be healthy, It can be said that any society can be judged by the way it treats its sick and its elderly. America, unfortunately, has not done well in that regard. A nonprofit, patient-oriented system which utilizes not only allopathic medicine but alternative natural approaches as well with equal measure would be far more effective and humane. Dr McCoy once referred to the existing for-profit system as "medievalism," and he is correct. Human lives have been reduced to an expendable commodity in this system, and both hospitals and pharmaceutical companies must be fully investigated and held accountable for their actions.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm pointing out the fact that this article is baseless FUD. It's Mike lashing out at anything and everything government-related that he can possibly cast aspersions on. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's clear that Mike only cares about posting idiotic, anti-government/anti-authority nonsense.
There is not one iota of evidence that the Secretary performs her duties less capably because she doesn't use email. This story epitomizes the essence of Mike Masnick. He runs with a story that makes someone in authority/government look bad, regardless of whether there's any actual actual evidence that there is in fact a problem.
Yet you have not provided a single piece of empirical evidence to support your claim. Without such evidence, your claim is as baseless as you say Mike's is.
Here's the extent of Mike's thought process: "Hey, that kind of makes someone in power look bad at first blush. New article! Fuck you, government servant!" That's how shallow he is.
I *wish* Mike would conduct himself like Karl does, having intelligent discussions with those who challenge him. But Mike will *never* do that. All he cares about is pleasing the 4chan kiddies.
No wonder Mike won't engage me (or any of the other critics) in a substantive discussion. He's just not *albe* to. It's all making sense to me now. What a waste of an ivy league MBA.
I see you did not heed my words about changing the tone of your posts. Do not expect discourse when you hurl vitriol at anyone who speaks with you. This is why Mike and others do not engage you. Because of your arrogance and unwillingness to refrain from insults and condescension.
Who knows, but I'll bet the CEO of USAirways can't fly a 737. Same thing for the guy who runs Amtrak- I doubt he could bring the Acela from NY to Boston.
It is really so difficult, AC, to understand that one could move up from having done those things for many years to supervising them? In a company or organization with rational policies, this would be the norm, for experienced individuals to ascend to positions of leadership where their firsthand knowledge and expertise would aid them far more in their field than a generic business degree. Thus, if USAirways operated in a logical manner, its CEO would have been a pilot of its planes for many years before ascending to his current position, thereby possessing the experience necessary to guide such a company more wisely than a business graduate with no firsthand knowledge of how his or her business or organization and its components operate.
Re: Re: Re:
It would be wise of you to refrain from posting as you do, Average, unless you wish to persist in this illogical course of action and continue to appear as clearly uninformed as your words and tone portray. Arrogance and condescension will not win you any minds, but rather only harm both your case and your reputation. I realize that as an attorney, you argue for a living, but there are times when it is more beneficial not to do so. This is one of those times. If you do not refrain from your insults and other derogatory methods of speech, they will continue to undermine everything you say. Falsehood and misrepresentation will take you nowhere. At least, nowhere that you wish to go. Therefore, I advise you to abandon them. Otherwise, your intellectual dishonesty will cling to you like a pair of Tiberian bats.
It would also be wise of you to begin examining the government with a clear eye, as opposed to the clouded lenses you use now. Logic clearly dictates that the best individuals to supervise technology or any other field are those with many hours and years of experience with it. For example, Mr. Scott is the chief of Engineering because of his high degree of expertise and many years of experience in the operation and maintenance of the warp engines and their related technologies. It would neither be logical nor prudent to have an individual in charge who did not have such qualifications. Yet you appear to have no issues with an official supervising a field with which she herself admits she has no practical experience. To make and enforce policy in such an environment based on the decisions of one unfamiliar with what they are supervising would be both unwise and possibly dangerous.
(untitled comment)
Furthermore, when the law does not conform to the will of the people, it has no lasting power and will inevitably be overturned. And while these illogically high fines could be seen to act as a deterrent, they do not do so in the way their proponents would like. Rather, they serve only to dissuade others from having any association with those who promote such fines and punishments. No profit can be made from an individual who does not wish to have anything to do with you or your product.
(untitled comment)
Consider the case if Ms. Thomas been sued for theft of physical goods of equivalent value to the songs she infringed. Twenty-four items worth $.99 each. Twenty-four $.99 pencils, for example. The fines would have been far less in that case. As there is no logical basis for such a discrepancy, the mere difference of the nature of the product should have no bearing on the amount fined. Therefore, the damages awarded to the RIAA and its labels are grossly disproportionate and must be opposed. Unless you believe, as copyright maximalists do, that it is ethical and reasonable to fine an individual for hundreds of millions of dollars and ruin him or her financially for an act with less provable harm than the theft of handful of pencils.
(untitled comment)
This incident demonstrates that no corporate entity or union of such is immune to the power of the internet community. Logic clearly dictates that no matter the precautions taken, those with the skill and desire to redirect the online tools of corporations will do so. It is as certain as the sand on Vulcan.
(untitled comment)
When an organization such as the FBI becomes more concerned with its image and its own power rather than the well-being of the citizens it is intended to serve, the logical course of action is to oppose it and expose its corruption, as Antisec has done. It is at this point that the FBI must be reformed or removed, as it has forgotten the purpose it was created for. To do so, it must be made to collapse from the weight of its own bureaucracy. This leak and its exposure by Antisec are conducive to that process and should be encouraged.
(untitled comment)
This incident serves as a simple yet effective demonstration of how adjusting business policies and procedures to reflect actual consumer demand is both profitable and reduces infringement in a positive way. It is unfortunate, however, that most such networks and entertainment companies are not likely to learn from this experience.
Re: Re: Re:
You have yet to demonstrate with empirical, non-entertainment industry evidence that infringement causes any harm whatsoever, Lime AC. Until you do, every argument you make is invalid because they are based on a false premise.
(untitled comment)
Senator Wyden is doing his job, Yellow AC. Which is more than can be said for most of Congress, even most politicians.
(untitled comment)
Average Joe, you fail to realize that, as I stated above, only physical things can truly be property, because they are rivalrous. Intangible, nonphysical things such as ideas and expressions cannot, by their very nature, be property no matter what legal constructs you attempt to fence them in with. They will not be contained or locked down, and the sharing of them does not in any way diminish them. Rather, it builds them and helps them grow.
Unethical laws such as what copyright has become must be opposed and ignored and their powerlessness demonstrated for all to see. The control you once had is gone and will never return, and no amount of laws and treaties will change that. People will do what they know can be done, and they will not be stopped. Digital copies cannot be contained or restricted. To attempt to do so is futile. The only choice you can make is whether to adapt to the new way, or fall into obscurity with all that is left of the old guard.
Re: Re: Re:
Incorrect, AC. For something to be property, it must be strictly physical in nature. Things that are intangible cannot be property, precisely because they cannot be contained. The kind of control you imagine does not exist. As Captain Sisko said, "you can pulp a book, but you cannot destroy an idea." What this means is that ideas and culture, and the individual expressions thereof, will exist in spite of any and all attempts to silence or destroy them. They will not be stifled or restrained. When a voice demands to be heard, it will be heard. You cannot silence what by its very nature must speak.
I note also that you provide no evidence of your claims or of your alleged expertise. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that you possess either one, and as such, your argument is invalid. You also neglected to account for the fact that unauthorized downloads are only illegal because of laws that are demonstrably unethical and which were passed through corrupt means. Therefore, it is not wrong to ignore and oppose such laws.
Whether you like it or not, AC, technology is changing how individuals and societies interact with our shared human culture. If you wish to remain relevant, you must change with it. The Borg have a saying, and I believe it is relevant here:
"Resistance is futile."
Re:
Agreed. According to the Greek myths, the only way the hydra could be killed was with fire, burning all the heads at once. A similar solution may be required here, though I hope we do not have to find out.
Concerning the comments about Lindsay Lohan, I believe she has inflicted enough damage through her own actions that she has no reputation left to tarnish.
As the Yeats poem states, "Things fall apart. The center cannot hold." This will prove true of the legacy industries of all kinds and their government supporters. Evil is inherently self-destructive, and their end can only result in one outcome, as history has shown numerous times. Those who fear, fade away. And those who adapt, as the Borg do, thrive.
Re: Re: Morals mean nothing because their very definition is skewed
You may not be aware, That One Guy, but Maoist China, along with Stalinist Russia, were among the most brutal dictatorships of the twentieth century, killing tens of millions of people - estimates reach up to 100 million. By contrast, the Crusades (which were primarily defensive engagements), the Inquisition, and the Salem witch trials together took approximately only 1 percent of that total in loss of life, over a span of five hundred years. I merely state this as a point of comparison.
(untitled comment)
The better solution, I believe, is to avoid restricting who can purchase your product entirely. Apple is merely a vendor and its responsibilities should not extend beyond that field. What customers do with their product after it is sold is not necessary for Apple to be concerned with. It is much the same as those who place responsibility for bad actions upon the tools rather than those who use them. An unfortunate oversight on their part.
A better way would be to reduce the factors in our nation which cause others to be hostile to us. Namely, scaling back our military efforts by a large degree and eliminating our espionage programs (such as those responsible for Stuxnet) entirely, as well as the alphabet agencies who sponsor them. And adopt an earthly version of the Prime Directive. No interference in the internal affairs of other nations. As well as abandoning all international treaties which seek to force our laws upon other nations - namely, ACTA and TPP, among others.
(untitled comment)
Purple AC 33. Please show us a single work that makes no references whatsoever to any other created work or idea. You cannot, because culture is built in its entirety upon what came before. What you are doing is mistaking reinterpretation for brand new creation. They are not the same thing. Human culture is merely the reinterpretation of existing ideas and stories.
Also, Pat, explain how an idea can be "stolen." One cannot reach in and remove an idea from an individual's mind. That idea is still there and therefore, still exists. Copying is not theft because no loss has occurred. Thusly, the term "idea poaching" is highly inaccurate.
Re: Re: Re:Something to remember
You make these claims, Wally, but you do not provide any evidence to support them. Also, preemptive acts are never justified no matter what the reason. If you were truly concerned about the effects of nuclear weapons, you would push for the US to disarm its own supply first, which is the largest in the world.
Acting out of fear is never the correct course of action. It is the US government's continual and deliberate interference in the affairs of other nations that is a substantial reason for the world's dislike of this country. Had we adopted and practiced an earthly version of the Prime Directive, this would not be the case. And without built-up resentment, other nations would have had less cause to want to do the US harm.
Acts of sabotage are never right, no matter the supposed reason. They are, by their very nature, acts born of fear rather than logic. Rather than attempt to push its agenda upon all other nations as it currently is, the US ought to instead adopt the Prime Directive, recall all military personnel from abroad, and work in peace to ensure a better world for its people.
Dictators rise and fall, it is the way of human nature, and many who are there now are only in the position due to US influence and serve as puppet rulers. If our government truly believes in self-determination, then it needs to withdraw all forces from abroad and let other nations govern themselves without any US influence whatsoever.
It is an unfortunate reality that the worst villains often see themselves as heroes, and that the US in large part suffers from such a mistaken view of things. And it is this government's myopia and hypocrisy which condemns this country in the sight of other nations. Violence and the threat of it should be the last resort, not the first. And tactics such as sabotage should be avoided entirely, unless you wish the US to become a nation of Romulans. Personally, I would prefer the Federation instead.
Re: Re:
The difficulty with a boycott lies in the fact that they are often disorganized, and for any meaningful amount of monetary damage to be inflicted, hundreds of millions of people must participate simultaneously and for a sustained period of time. The damage must be severe enough and immediate enough that these organizations are crippled beyond the ability to recover. Inflicting any less than multibillion dollar damages upon them within a short time frame still leaves them with the ability to function. In other words, what you believe would happen to these companies and organizations if they suddenly and without warning took a 50 billion dollar loss?
Re: E-book pricing is good
I do not agree. Pricing is most effective when done according to a product's marginal cost. In the case of digital goods, that marginal cost is zero. Therefore, to be economically correct, the prices of ebooks must be lowered to reflect that marginal cost. Many authors have already done so, pricing their ebooks at $1 to $2 at most, and seen far greater sales as a result. The reason this is so is because people are more likely to buy at lower prices. You must price according to what they deem reasonable, not you. If you do and your product is of high quality, you will far exceed in sales volume what you would have made at a higher price.
Re: I'm Learning
Your confusion about God's reasons for placing the tree in the garden are understandable, PatM, and there is nothing wrong with that. He did so because he made us with free will, with the ability to choose. Otherwise, we could not love. You cannot know what love is if you do not know what it is not, and you cannot love if you cannot choose to love. But for such a choice to be possible, it must also be possible to choose not to love. Thus, he does not force us to love him, because to do so would be meaningless. He wishes us to be free sons and daughters, not puppets or automatons. Anyone can come to him if they choose to, no matter who they are or what they have done. Through his Son's death and resurrection, we are reconciled to him if we accept it.
To return to the topic at hand, governments will not cease to abuse their authority until they are forced to do so. It would be better if that goal were achieved through financial starvation of the companies who influence them rather than outright rebellion. However, it is possible that such a revolt may be the only option. A last resort, if other methods fail. Starfleet captains, at least in the 24th century, only rely on phasers when diplomacy and other methods cannot resolve the situation. It would be advisable for us to follow the same course of action.