Right, well I've missed a bit so I'm gonna have to apologise for the backtracking...Anyway, Felice:OK, for starters I think you've gotta stop taking apart > others comments and criticising them piecemeal (very > easy to do), and put forward (and defend) a coherant > codified statement of your own views (not quite so > easy to do). ==============Ok, for starters I think you've gotta stop responding with general statements of position (very easy to do), and start responding directly to specific points not quite so easy to do). Actually it's very easy to reply to specific points because there's a counter-arguement to pretty much every position or statement (in the social sciences) and, because a single statement will generally have a much more limited scope than an entire theory, so whereas to defend a single statement requires a single counter-point, a unified and codified theory will contain (depending obviously on the type and nature of theory) potentially thousands of statements and positions, all of which must be mutually reinforcing and defendable as individual edicts and in terms of their relationship to every other statement AND the way in which every statement comes together to create the unified theory . Furthermore, in propounding a theory you'll have to provide a full defense of all the specific suppositions upon which your logic is based (those related directly to the theory and its arguements), and perhaps even to provide justification for all the general suppositions within which framework your theory is formulated. By general suppositions I'm refering to the mores and conventions within which and from which your theory is born and takes shape, for example, social and political thought and theory in the Western tradition is most usually couched in terms of Kants logic of causation in terms of constant conjunction, a techniqiue and method of logical reasoning which, in defending your theory, you may be called upon also to defend. These are "general suppositions", with potentially infinite scope. There's all sorts of other stuff that fits in the category aswell, such as, for example the very notion of "fairness" (implicit in the notion of social justice) , which'll bring you absolute and relative morality and notions of "truth" and so on.So, you got that the wrong way round. Its actually much harder to propound and defend a unified theory than it is to tackle individual points piecemeal.> The arguement that Ebay sellers are bootleggers is > equally valid for Simon - he is bootlegging, therefore he > is a bootlegger. True. Therefore any arguement > criticising Ebay bootleggers FOR BOOTLEGGING can also > be applied to Simon . True. Have I made that clear > enough? ================================Yes, that's completely true. It's also true that Simon put significant work in to making the series available whereas the Ebayers didn't, and that it's immoral to imply that the VCDs have limited availability when they can easily be reproduced in any quantity required. I wasn't talking about morality, i was discussing legality, but anyway....To my knowlege no-one has ever even implied that Starfleet VCDs have limited avaliability - even if it weren't obvious enough I think its pretty much common knowledge amongst PC literates that with a CD burner and a set of masters the only real limitations are time and the supply of blank CDs (unless we're gonna be silly about it, then we'd have to include stuff like electricity, air (to breath), will to live etc etc). And yes, Simon did put more work in than the Ebayers, but thats a qualification, not a counter, so the original point stands. But since you mention morality that kind of takes me back to one of my original points; Question: is it immoral for Simon C to "grass up" Ebayers for bootlegging and potentially expose them to crimimal and other charges at the hands of the Inland revenue, when he does the same thing himself? Answer: MaybeQuestion: Given Simon's actions, would it be immoral for any one of the "Ebayers" to "grass up" Simon Coverdale to the IR and/or copyright holders for bootlegging and making undeclared business profits Answer: Nope. (and I'm surprised they haven't done it - expect it's sure to happen if and when one of them figures out that it's Simon C interfering with their business.)> Incidentally, the copyright holders may well be loosing > FUTURE sales to Simon (if a DVD/VHS release does ever > come about ... as in the case of Terrahawks!!), so that > arguement isn't valid either. =====================I still think it's valid. Yes, they may be loosing a small number of future sales; that's the price they pay for choosing not to make an official version available. Irrespective of the legalities of the situation, I don't think the copyright holders have a moral right to completely prevent people from obtaining copies of the series. Well, if they're loosing a small number of future sales then trhe same applies for Simon who can also only be loosing a "small number of sales". Granted, as a percentile or percentage this could be expressed differently but either way I don't think Simon is really loosing out on many sales. The people buying on Ebay are either impulse buyers or "browsers" - people who surf Ebay media sections, see something they remember or like and decide to bid on it. They obviously aren't that massive fans of the show because if they were they would already have taken action to find it, discovered Simons StarfleetDirect.com (rather promninant due to beaing advertised with Googles "adwords") and bought the set for £23 as opposed to £60 plus, the price that some of the auctions on Ebay went up to.So I don't honestly think Simon is loosing many sales, and those few he does loose are due more to the conveniance and safety (insured credit card payments) of Ebay and little else. > As for your comments relating to public libraries, you've > changed tack here a little, in fact my public library does > RENT out DVDs, along with music CDs, VHS tapes and > even some Playstation games, however, you were > originally talking about ownership, not renting. A big > difference. ======================A minimal difference. If something is available to be borrowed as needed, how is that different from ownership in practical terms? Again, you're wrong, in fact it's very different, even massively different, in practical terms, on account of the logistics. Lets take, say, just 50 DVDs, 50 VHS, 50 pieces of software, and 100 CDs ( 250 in total out of the tens of millions of items commercailly avaliable out there. There are approximately 60 million people in the UKIn the individual ownership scenario ín the UK we'd need 60,000,000 x 250, which is 15,000,000,000 items of media(CDs/DVDs etc) In the public library scenario, we'd need say, one copy of each per 50,000 head (average population of a small to medium sized town), which is 60,000,000 / 50,000 multiplied by 250 ,which comes to 300,000. Now this is plausible, though only just, considering that HERE IVE ONLY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT 250 INDIVIDUAL COPYRIGHTED AUDIOVISUAL ITEMS OUT OF THE TENS OF MILLIONS COMMERCIALLY AVALIABLE.If we need 15 billion individual medias (CDs/DVDs etc)just to provide the population of the UK (62 million; tiny compared to say, China, Russia or the USA) with just 250 individual items can you even begin to imagine the sheer scale of proposing to provide every single one of the 6,228,394,430 (62 billion) people worldwide with ownership of every one of the billions of audio-visual items that are commercially avaliableThis is why I think your ideas are daft, even ludicrous: aside from the natural resources / production capacity / pollution issues (which are very significant but should be obvious even to you), your position would place millions of DVDs and
CDs in every shanty in Brazil, every mud hut in Botswana, every shack in Ethiopia, at the same time as worldwide:1.2 billion people dont have access to clean drinking water20 million people die yearly from treatable conditions, More than 80 million people are chronically undernourished10 million people die every year die of starvation, 2 billion suffer from nutrient-deficient caused illnesses. Need I go on?.... And, thats why I feel we could be debating much more urgent and much more sensible issues than "free DVDs for all" when we discuss international politics and social morality.(And please don't try and throw a potential avaliability vs actual demand arguement at me because it just won't wash, as I'll probably have to explain when you do bring it out).> Yes, we do pay a TV license in Britain of around £150 > though this varies according to circumstances, and yes, > we could as you suggest, in theory, extend this to > include subsidisation of other mediums such as DVD or > CD, however, the costs involved ON A NATIONAL SCALE > in Britain would be phenomenal. I couldn;'t even begin > to do the sums accurately, but I estimate that to > include the whole range of DVD VHS CD and other > media, we'd be looking at an "entertainment tax" of a > minimum of £20,000 per head(probably much more > when you consider the billions of individual copyright - > held medias), roughly equivalent to the average > household after tax income. Are you starting to see my > point? ======================That would be a total tax of £1.2 trillion a year, which would be enough to make ten "Titanic"s, two tousand episodes of "Babylon 5", or ten thousand episodes of "Doctor Who". Just for Britain, in just one year. =Probably a bit excessive, I'd say. Also, the cost of =production could be offset by international sales =(potentially to the point where it makes money instead of costing money), and it would be theoretically possible =to buy the national rights for films and programs =produced overseas for a lot less than the cost of production. In fact, I think that's often done already; one company will buy the local rights to a DVD for a flat fee, and can then sell as many copies as it likes. If the overseas producers weren't willing to sell their data on that basis, individuals could still purchase private copies as is done now. In any case, there's no need to spend any more than the current average expenditure on data; people would use more data if it was free, but it wouldn't cost any more to produce. I don't think my figures are over estimates, if anything they are likely to be underestimates. Either way I can't say for certain because they are completely wild guesses. The figures elsewhere in this post however, should be enough to justify my original point, and these are taken from actual United Nations figures and UK census data.Furthermore, if we take your figures as they are expressed, it does seem a bit extreme, but in actuality they come down to 10 Hollywood films (hundreds, even thousands, have been released each year for the past 50 years). and about 4000 hours of mid-budget serial entertainment - which is a massively less figure than the total hours of "serial entertainment" produced worldwie since the advent of colour TV or VHS, or whenerver you want to place the marker==========================An ideal system would be for Britain to trade its output of data for that of other countries; eg Britain gives the US a copy of all data it produces, and in return gets a copy of everything the US produces. Poor countries get access to more than they produce, yes, but they =wouldn't have bought much anyway if they had to pay, =and it doesn't cost the provider anything to supply =them. What, apart from production and refinement of raw materials and worldwide dissemination...?> Even under a different system of government subsidy > we'd still have the problem of low capita users > subsidising high capita users ====================You mean people who don't make use of much data would be subsidising those who do? Ideally, people would be free to decide how much of their tax bill went in to the Data Fund; those who didn't consider data to be a priority wouldn't have to pay for it. Now, again, thats just silly, because human beings are essentially selfish - you tell people they can pay their taxes as and when, and to the value they see fit, then I for one wouldn't be paying taxes. (or if I did it'd be to the tiniest amount my cognitive dissonance could justify and rationalise to my superego - something most humans are pretty good at)Now you can say here that I'm wrong and that human beings are essentailly altruistic, not selfish, but I'd cite Darwin, Freud and a whole host of others to reinforce my arguement. (Which brings me back to my first point about suppositions)> this is acceptable in the essentail public services such > as the NHS but would not be in relation to > non-essential/luxury items ==============================Why? It's the most efficient way to deal with products that aren't diminishable. Libraries are non-essential/luxury items, but I think they're a good thing.Its acceptable in relation to the consequences of action/non-action; the NHS is responsible for saving lives and ensuring the populations good health, which is essential for the succsessful functioning of a countrey and its economy. Owning all 12 Buffy The Vampire Slayer DVD Box sets isn't quite so functionally important.> So on a national scale its completely unfeasible ========================I disagree. You're massively overestimating the costs. No I'm not, again, I've cited the figures on a national and ghlobal scale above. Read through em again.> on a global scale in theory it might just work, but its so > unlikely to ever happen that there's not much point > even debating it ===========================If you don't like debating implausible things, then why are you posting on a science fiction board? Didn't say I wasn't enjoying the debate (kind of satisfying in a morbid kind of way, like squatting a Mosquito thats just bitten you on the foot), I was just saying that your arguements are pointless in the extreme, for aforementioned reasons. Interesting though that you equate your ideas with the realm of make believe and absurdity.> My general problem with a lot of your views doesn't > involve the particulars ==============================Such as? We've been gong through those through the entire string and continue to do so, suggest you look back over this thread if you're unsure, as it saves me the effort of having to cut and paste it all down again> it's that your ideas are so, I dunno, "leftfield"?, > "radical"? "absurd"? ======================They're certainly radical, but that doesn't mean they aren't reasonable. Its not being "radical" that makes your views unreasonable, its the views themselves that do that (well hey, would ya look at that, I've just personified a viewpoint....must be getting tired )> there really is no chance of ever implementing > them, or even of considering their implementation, in > todays advanced global-economic society/ies. =========================Today's advanced society is precisely what makes it theoretically possible to implement. And all it would require would be expansion of existing systems; it wouldn't need a fundamental change. Of course, I =expect the capitalist powers-that-be would strongly =resist any attempt to implement such things. Wrong again! See below.> Which makes them a bit pointless, I kind of feel you're > flogging a damp squib. May be a nice idea in theory, but > then again so is free gin and tonics to all miners whos > surname has the letter "p" in it. Like I say, nice idea but
> utterly ridiculous in the real world. ============================Your "nice idea" is utterly ridiculous; each gin and tonic has a significant production cost, unlike data which only has a development cost, and your method for allocating it is completely arbitrary and irrational.Well, it was supposed to be a rather frivolous barb and nothing more but anyway......Although.....if we're to have state-supplied/subsidiseddigital data why not have state supplied/subsidised alcoholic drinks? I think in the kind of system you're talking about that would have to be the case anyway (please don't mention Communist Russia and vodka chits). State subsidised DVDs, alcohol and clothes and everything in between. Well hey, thats Communism for ya....==================================My ideas are completely feasible; the only real argument you've given is the cost, and I've answered that. They may be feasable in terms of a unified theory (I wouldn't know as you refuse to lay out a codified statement of your overall position), although I honestly doubt that, in any case they're certainlky not feasible in terms of implementation - for the reasons and costs laid out above and below and throughout the debate..======================="That's crazy" on its own isn't a valid argument; you need to explain _why_. Well, firstly I didn't say they were crazy ideas, I said they were absurd, and I think I explained why; because your ideas have absolutely no chance of being implemented now or in the near future. Debating social and political reform can be very constructive, but you're not talking about reform, or even renaissance, you're talking about replacement and reversal, and complete reversal and replacement of social, political and legal values, systems and statutes simultaneously both in a micro sense, in terms of every country on Earth, as well as in a macro sense, in terms of a global system of co-operation and exchange just is not feasible, and yes, I'd go as far as to suggest that expectation of that level of variance from current and traditional socio-economic forms is indeed, absurd. And for the same reason not particularly constructive. OK, was that specific enough for you?