Re: Markets (was Re: Hayek was right. Twice.)
On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > But try constructing an Independence Day without Will Smith. Or the > special effects. Or the soundtrack. Or the distribution chain. Try > guaranteeing that it arrives on schedule without making a loss. Luckily movie industry will not be hit by the free distribution as bad as music industry. This is because a major portion of their money comes from people going to cinema to see the movies. They don't do that because they don't have a copy at home, but because they wish to see it in a big screen with awsome sound effects. And that is something we just don't have yet in every house - and something that will be a big investment for a long time. And digitilizing will reduce movie makers costs for transferring the movies to the theaters as well, giving them another edge there. That allows one to go for a global premiers and gather enough payers in the first week to pay for the movie. Now music industry has concentrated in bringing music to peoples homes, and they will be in trouble when people start getting all their music from internet for free. There are nice ways of getting around this as well, as some have pointed around - market will provide... -- Mikko"One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all And in the Darkness bind them."
Re: Markets (was Re: Hayek was right. Twice.)
On Wed, 3 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Again, If you offered the average guy the deal "Would you like on demand >access to all movies and television shows ever made, even if it meant >fewer and lower budget movie releases in future?", I think most people >would go for on demand access to everything. That might well be. But being that you're tapping into something largely produced under existing copyright law, I fail to see why this is an argument against continuing the practice of copyright in some form. Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], tel:+358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front openpgp: 050985C2/025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
24/7 Bulk Emailing Service Now Available...
Email advertising WORKS! 24/7 Bulk Mailing Service has 1 opening.. Your message emailed to millions and millions every day non stop 7 days a week. Average between 1-3 million per day depending on message size etc. You will receive more leads and business than you ever imagined. Price is $2500.00 per week. Other bulk mailers charge from $500-$750 or more per each million emails sent. With our 24/7 plan, you only pay for the first 5 million, and the remaining 15-30 million are free. We only have one opening available, so respond now if you are interested. Click HERE for info. Save the Planet, Save the Trees! Advertise via E-mail. DELETE WITH ONE SIMPLE KEYSTROKE! No wasted paper! Remove Here
Re: Markets (was Re: Hayek was right. Twice.)
On Wed, 3 Jul 2002, Gabriel Rocha wrote: >Property does not always consist of physical goods. Of course not. Am I not making this precise point? >To use some of your examples, the polical process involves votes, which >are the property of the person casting the ballots, likewise, at least >in this country, ballots are cast voluntarily. However, that sort of property isn't anywhere near the kind one would expect of a free market commodity -- it isn't severable. You can't legally sell or buy votes. >Time and effort are both considered "property" to be used as deemed fit >by the person possessing, in this case, the skills to use them on an >Open Source What can I say, barter in time and effort is probably the best sign of a gift economy in action. >I can't think many things more modular than movies, except perhaps >theatre, but movies have even more latitude. Actors can't be switched? >Sets can't be constructed out of "nothing" on a computer screen? Of course they can. However, not one of those parts is useful in itself. You don't sell a set without the actors, or vice versa. That's the problem. With Linux, each individual utility is useful in itself. If someone needs the functionality, one just codes it and releases. In many cases that's a few days work, and a good part of the benefit goes to the coder himself. Consider then something like a novel. It's not very useful if you tear out the last 50 or so pages, is it? Whoever is making and paying for the effort (perhaps with his time, as is the case with volunteer projects) has to be willing to invest enough to finish the work before it acquires real value. That value is then thinly spread over a considerable number of readers many of whom have to be willing to pay for the effort if the novel is to come to being in the first place. When I talk about modularity, I talk about it in the economic sense of divisibility, not the technical one of being able to create a single act of a play, a movie set, a Java class or an actor's performance in isolation. The trouble with public goods comes around when no single person is willing to pay for the whole project, but a million or so in toto would be, barring transaction costs from things like freeriding. If you grok it, I can't help you. >Movies can't be made with virtually no budget? Hollywood blockbusters? Hardly. That was what I was talking about from the start. Besides, I do know a couple of Finnish low budget directors. Only rarely do I find the tenacity to actually delve into their work. Money isn't everything in movies, either, but it's still a lot. >As someone who actually helps people with unix problems and who is a >unix user, I want to let you know that you fall into the "stupid user" >category if you can't get a linux distro to install on your computer. First, there is nothing wrong with being a "stupid user". Stupid users are who software is mostly for, aren't they. Second, it's not the whole install, it's details like getting X to work with a nonstandard display memory config. I'm not exactly unknowledgeable about software, but I'm no kernel hacker either. Do you think most people should be? >Throw in the fact that "usefulness" is an entirely relative term, and >you have a really poor argument. Throw in the fact that this precise relativity is what the whole of economics revolves around, and the table turns quite nicely. >Often the economic argument made is that people do what is in their best >interest. The problem that arises is when people who aren't very bright >(hint, hint) assume that that means financial reward of some kind. Did I somehow limit the question to money? If so, that's certainly not all that I meant. The economics of public goods apply perfectly well to nonfinancial compensation. In fact, copyrights do not have anything to do with money, per se, only with the establishment of a property right in abstract things. If people behave the way you seem to think they do, we will slide into a nonfinancial information economy even in the presence of copyright; Coase was brought into this, and it's still relevant. If you start from the normal assumptions relating to laissez-faire economics, you'll also assume transaction costs to be negligible and a stable, unique equilibrium to exist, in which case any initial allocation of property rights will lead to the precise same outcome. >Well, libertarians usually, though not always, go along with free >markets, which is not what you're advocating. Actually I'm not advocating a whole lot, here. Right now I'm mostly making a point about public goods and Coase's theorem, and their connection to the institution of intellectual property rights. As I said, I'm an IP abolitionist and free-marketeer myself. >Usually, any economic theory that assumes that anything could have no >value to anyone is wrong. But if you read what I've posted so far a bit more carefully, you'll see that that is not at all what I've assumed. >Bilateral trade is the
Congratulations, Choose Your FREE Baseball Cap from Yourpresent.com
Title: FREE* Baseball Cap Dear Friends, This is your 4th and final notice. You've been selected. With #B76185, you can choose a FREE* $24.95 brushed cotton twill New Era brand baseball cap from any major league team you choose. But you must click here now to collect this prize. No other announcements will be sent. Name: xx E-mail: xx Code: B76185 Click here to receive a New Era brand baseball cap from any major league team you choose. FREE*! Sincerely, Lori Anderson Yourfreepresent.com Click Here For GIFT: Official MLB Licensed Brushed cotton twill cap with embroidered logo One size fits all A $24.95 valueYOURS FREE*! P.S. Please feel free to forward this on to a friend. *All offers are based on 100% customer satisfaction. Yourfreepresent reserves the right to cancel this offer any time once quantities run out. A small shipping and handling charge of $5.93 will be applied to each item. All merchandise and offers are based on first come first serve. Offer not valid in the state of California. You are receiving this email because you are registered as a member of 1sourcedeals.com or one of our marketing partners. From time to time we inform our members about special offers.If you don't wish to receive this update, please click here to unsubscribe.
Best Products of Korea(Awarded by Korean Government)
Date: July 4th, 2002 Subject: Best Products of Korea (Awarded by Korean Government) Web-Site: WWW.SAEBYUL.NET E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] *Importers and Brokers Wanted (In each Country) *Our Product Lines are Great for You to Set New Business. *Please take a look at our product lines VERY CAREFULLY (^_^) Who May It Concerned, We've got your company¡¯s information on the trading related sites. We are strongly recommending you to visit our business site, WWW.SAEBYUL.NET, to see many innovated supreme quality of Korean products awarded by Korean Government. We are highly recommend you to purchase some samples for evaluation purpose you are interested in before you placing a main order. If you let us know what samples you want to purchase, we will immediately send you a Proforma Invoice via E-mail. We will dispatch samples to you by EMS, as soon as we receive the funds from your organization. It will take only 3-15 business days to be there in each country. We are sure that you will have a great opportunity to expand your business scope or to set new business with our products for the long-term. I look forward to hearing from you with an order of products after visiting our sites. Best regards, Trade Manager If you would like to be removed from any of our distribution lists, please return this email with REMOVE written in the subject line. It will be handled promptly. Thank you.
Re: maximize best case, worst case, or average case? (TCPA)
Quoting Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Okay, you are afraid that only "properly authorized" code will run. > Let's talk about one area: programming languages. > > What about compilers? Development systems? No doubt you'll claim these > will be restricted. They'll be like assault weapons. Use a compiler, > go to jail. This despite the fact that they are necessary tools for > technological progress today. Basically, the concern I have is not that any *particular* end-user developed application, in a post-DRM/TCPA world, will be rendered illegal, but that the core of the machine will be modified such that a remote attacker can deploy targeted or general sniffer/reporter trojans. If you remove the ability to compute in secret, with all communications widely . The code which will be "illegal" on a DRM/TCPA/etc. machine, which would actually be illegal if only those machines existed (which can be done through restrictions on sales of new machines, or just special kinds of I/O), is anything whihc can circumvent this DRM microkernel. The DRM microkernel will inevitably be implemented in a non-transparent way, allowing remote attackers superuser over OS-superuser access. Switching to machines with one local root and lots of dumb terminals would be roughly the same, except users have more explicit knowledge of the power of root, and some influence over the selection of that root. Simply eliminating the ability of most users to have a locally-secure fully trusted execution environment, with processing, intermediate storage protected from tampering or disclosure, etc., and network communications, will kill cypherpunk applications. If any cypherpunk application requires the users to jump through hoops to get a reasonable hardware platform, vs. just using a normal PC on his desk, there is a bit of difficulty -- it's hard enough to get cypherpunk applications deployed today, even without such restrictions. It's possible the system will be designed to prevent remote control at the microkernel level, but then the signed OS required to deal with signed media objects on a daily basis, which most users will require, may support this functionality. Since this code will be signed, third party patches will be prohibited. -- Ryan Lackey [RL7618 RL5931-RIPE][EMAIL PROTECTED] CTO and Co-founder, HavenCo Ltd.+44 7970 633 277 the free world just milliseconds away http://www.havenco.com/ OpenPGP 4096: B8B8 3D95 F940 9760 C64B DE90 07AD BE07 D2E0 301F
Virus discarded
We received a message claiming to be from you which contained a virus according to File::Scan v0.31, a Perl module from CPAN at http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/H/HD/HDIAS This message was not delivered to the intended recipient, it has been discarded. For information on removing viruses from your computer, please see http://www.google.com/search?q=antivirus or http://hotbot.lycos.com/?query=antivirus Postmaster Sender : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Recipient : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-Id : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: CDR: Welcome to my hometown Virus : W32/Klez.gen@MM Original headers: From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Thu Jul 4 11:06:03 2002 >Received: (from cpunks@localhost) > by einstein.ssz.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA11103 > for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 10:14:17 -0500 >Received: (from mdom@localhost) > by einstein.ssz.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA11069 > for cypherpunks-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 10:11:28 -0500 >Received: from mailbox-11.st1.spray.net (mailbox-11.st1.spray.net [212.78.202.111]) > by einstein.ssz.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA11063 > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 10:11:10 -0500 >Received: from Eniik (h6n1q8.FH-Muenster.DE [195.37.148.210]) > by mailbox-11.st1.spray.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA13996 > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 17:01:39 +0200 (MEST) >Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 17:01:39 +0200 (MEST) >Posted-Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 17:01:39 +0200 (MEST) >Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >From: sven0027 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: CDR: Welcome to my hometown >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary=Xs8g4Aae1f3gw5mOB34BQ7451OKk28B >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Precedence: bulk >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-Mailing-List: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-Unsubscription-Info: http://einstein.ssz.com/cdr >X-List-Admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-Loop: ssz.com >X-Acceptable-Languages: English, Russian, German, French, Spanish
Virus discarded
We received a message claiming to be from you which contained a virus according to File::Scan v0.31, a Perl module from CPAN at http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/H/HD/HDIAS This message was not delivered to the intended recipient, it has been discarded. For information on removing viruses from your computer, please see http://www.google.com/search?q=antivirus or http://hotbot.lycos.com/?query=antivirus Postmaster Sender : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Recipient : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-Id : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Welcome to my hometown Virus : W32/Klez.gen@MM Original headers: From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Thu Jul 4 11:06:50 2002 >Received: from waste.minder.net (daemon@waste [66.92.53.73]) > by locust.minder.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g64F6JE38436 > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 11:06:19 -0400 (EDT) > (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Received: (from cpunks@localhost) > by waste.minder.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g64F6Gw28589 > for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 11:06:16 -0400 >Received: from locust.minder.net (locust.minder.net [66.92.53.74]) > by waste.minder.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g64F6Du28572 > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 11:06:13 -0400 >Received: from einstein.ssz.com (cpunks@[207.200.56.4]) > by locust.minder.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g64F5QE38395 > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 11:05:26 -0400 (EDT) > (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Received: (from cpunks@localhost) > by einstein.ssz.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA11102 > for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 10:14:17 -0500 >Received: (from mdom@localhost) > by einstein.ssz.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA11069 > for cypherpunks-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 10:11:28 -0500 >Received: from mailbox-11.st1.spray.net (mailbox-11.st1.spray.net [212.78.202.111]) > by einstein.ssz.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA11063 > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 10:11:10 -0500 >Received: from Eniik (h6n1q8.FH-Muenster.DE [195.37.148.210]) > by mailbox-11.st1.spray.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA13996 > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 17:01:39 +0200 (MEST) >Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 17:01:39 +0200 (MEST) >Posted-Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 17:01:39 +0200 (MEST) >Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >From: sven0027 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Old-Subject: CDR: Welcome to my hometown >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary=Xs8g4Aae1f3gw5mOB34BQ7451OKk28B >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Precedence: bulk >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-Mailing-List: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-Unsubscription-Info: http://einstein.ssz.com/cdr >X-List-Admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-Loop: ssz.com >X-Acceptable-Languages: English, Russian, German, French, Spanish >Subject: Welcome to my hometown
Hello
I am Andrew Sowho, We have not had the pleasure of each others acquaintance but I hope this will be remedied soon. I am in search of an Investment Manager who can invest and manage the sum of Sixteen Million United States Dollars into a viable endeavour, capable of yielding reasonable annual return as profit on principal amount invested. Given the antecedent of the ownership of the fuuds.I need someone who can clear the funds into his/her account , carry out the actual business and remit profit to my account without trouble.For avoidance of doubt, I require someone to be my eyes,ears and hands , someone who is reliable and trustworthy and above all cautious. should you be interested and capable please contact me via email for further details. I will not contact anyother person until I hear from you.
Executable discarded
We received a message claiming to be from you which contained a virus according to File::Scan v0.31, a Perl module from CPAN at http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/H/HD/HDIAS This message was not delivered to the intended recipient, it has been discarded. For information on removing viruses from your computer, please see http://www.google.com/search?q=antivirus or http://hotbot.lycos.com/?query=antivirus Postmaster Sender : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Recipient : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-Id : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: MIME-Version: 1.0 Virus : W32/Klez.gen@MM Original headers: From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Thu Jul 4 13:05:56 2002 >Received: from waste.minder.net (daemon@waste [66.92.53.73]) > by locust.minder.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g64H5ZE44304 > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 13:05:36 -0400 (EDT) > (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Received: (from cpunks@localhost) > by waste.minder.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g64H5WL04784 > for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 13:05:32 -0400 >Received: from locust.minder.net (locust.minder.net [66.92.53.74]) > by waste.minder.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g64H5Uu04765 > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 13:05:30 -0400 >Received: from einstein.ssz.com (cpunks@[207.200.56.4]) > by locust.minder.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g64H5AE44275 > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 13:05:10 -0400 (EDT) > (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Received: (from cpunks@localhost) > by einstein.ssz.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA14451 > for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 12:14:03 -0500 >Received: (from mdom@localhost) > by einstein.ssz.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA14187 > for cypherpunks-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 12:11:05 -0500 >Received: from sunny1.pacific.net.ph (sunny1.pacific.net.ph [210.23.234.92]) > by einstein.ssz.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA14126 > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 12:10:36 -0500 >Received: from pop2.pacific.net.ph (pop2.pacific.net.ph [210.23.234.90]) > by sunny1.pacific.net.ph with ESMTP > id g64H1K228935 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 01:01:20 +0800 >(PHT) >Received: from Zvmczk (h6n1q8.FH-Muenster.DE [195.37.148.210]) >by pop2.pacific.net.ph with SMTP >id BAA15453 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 01:01:13 +0800 (PHT) >Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 01:01:13 +0800 (PHT) >Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >From: Martin-Leugers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Old-Subject: CDR: MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary=D121qVj054067s18WLF795HJO541JV40OB >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Precedence: bulk >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-Mailing-List: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-Unsubscription-Info: http://einstein.ssz.com/cdr >X-List-Admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-Loop: ssz.com >X-Acceptable-Languages: English, Russian, German, French, Spanish >Subject: MIME-Version: 1.0 We received a message claiming to be from you which contained an executable attachment (batch file, script, program, etc). In order to protect users from malicious programs, we do not accept these file types thru this mail server. If you need to send the file to it's intended recipient, you must send it in an archived and/or compressed format. Your email has been sent to the intended recipient without this file included. A message detailing why it was dropped has been substitued in it's place. Postmaster Sender : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Recipient : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-Id : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: MIME-Version: 1.0 Mime type : audio/x-midi File name : Rvd.bat
WANTED - Assistants and Supervisors Needed 3108yleu3-816dsJv4245rx-22
Hello: A web site you visited automatically addded you to our mailing list because of your interest. If you are not interested please go to the remove instructions now. Surveys shows that 70% of all people would like to work from home. Would you? Our international mail order / internet business is exploding and WE NEED YOUR HELP. We are In need of 84 assistants and 20 supervisors!!! We want to hear from you. CONSIDER THESE BENEFITS: Work From Home. Be your own boss. Pick your own hours. Part time or full time. Be proud of YOUR business. Control how much you make. NO COMMUTE. Paid vacations and bonuses. For more information email [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please provide your NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE # and the best time to call. To be removed email [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please allow 48 hours for removal TO YOUR SUCCESS 6079bhmn1-419bANp6368Gdl22
Re: Markets (was Re: Hayek was right. Twice.)
-- James A. Donald: > > Again, If you offered the average guy the deal "Would you like > > on demand access to all movies and television shows ever made, > > even if it meant fewer and lower budget movie releases in > > future?", I think most people would go for on demand access to > > everything. On 4 Jul 2002 at 10:40, Sampo Syreeni wrote: > That might well be. But being that you're tapping into something > largely produced under existing copyright law, I fail to see why > this is an argument against continuing the practice of copyright > in some form. A moment ago you were arguing maximum utility (your public good argument) Now you concede utility, and argue rights, but copyright, unlike real property, is merely a conventional right, created by the will and power of the state, not a natural right. If that convention ceases to be convenient and useful, ceases to have utility, we should not continue it. And if you are going to argue from long established conventional rights, copyright has been extended by twenty years every twenty years, so it is not a long established conventional right. Returning to your public good argument. As more and more stuff piles up, the production of new stuff becomes a less and less valuable public good. At the same time, as with any "public good", congress (being in the pocket of state created interest groups) creates greater and greater incentives to produce more and more of this public good. If an anarchic free market underproduces public goods, government subject to interest groups overproduces public goods, a problem that is particularly serious with such dubious public goods as "defense", cultural or racial purity, and so on and so forth. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG AuUb5hhEidar6RcqijVgtwYwp/KmvStrc0T7DzHr 2RvexEhEvdWrbHJCBYyEdaMKK39UOJQJRBt9gjbKk
Re: data mining for moles
At 02:32 PM 7/3/02 -0500, Anonymous wrote: > Gee, maybe I should head for Cali and set up a linux cluster shop. > The pay is good, less fog than SF, and traffic is better than the 101. If you get nabbed and turn, you'll even get a new ID from the USG, without having to do that work yourself :-)
We have always been at war with Oceania
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=703&e=1&u=/ap/20020704/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_drug_flights_1 President Bush ( news - web sites) is expected to allow resumption of a program to force down or shoot down airplanes suspected of carrying drugs in Latin America, a senior administration official said Thursday. Does Mr. Bush understand tit-for-tat? Hasn't he figured out that he can bust all the petty hawalas he wants, but the Cartels have *cash* to spend, an excellent distribution network, and a few submarines? Looking for True Believers speaking spanish... Maybe the Saudis will start taking planes out for carrying ethanol...
Re: maximize best case, worst case, or average case? (TCPA)
-- On 4 Jul 2002 at 7:38, Anonymous wrote: > Okay, you are afraid that only "properly authorized" code will > run. Let's talk about one area: programming languages. > > What about compilers? Development systems? No doubt you'll > claim these will be restricted. They'll be like assault > weapons. Use a compiler, go to jail. This despite the fact > that they are necessary tools for technological progress today. Similar controls are applied on biotech, severely impeding biotechnology progress. There are lots of people who just plain do not like progress, precisely because it is likely to upset the status quo. Lots of people say biotechnology makes women infertile, causes the cows milk to dry up, all the usual accusations that were made about witchcraft. The Chinese government was alarmed by paper and printing 1900 years ago, and made it a state monopoly and state secret, so that it was only used by official people for official things. Five hundred years ago it became alarmed by the potential of ocean going ships, cannon, and compass, and put an end to ocean going ships, and so on and so forth. > Or do you think that only "properly authorized" Perl scripts > will run? That will never work. Perl is tweaked all the time; > the whole point of using it is so that you can adapt your site > functionality quickly and easily. Tweaking is hacking, hackers are evil, and must be punished for their sins. > The whole idea of outlawing programming languages and allowing > people to only run software on an approved list is utterly > ridiculous. Custom software is widely used throughout the world > for all kinds of mission critical activities. Business would > never allow the government to forbid custom software. Businesses would get licenses not available to individuals. It would be like medicine, reserved for special approved people. > People point to guns. Computer languages aren't anything like > guns. You can ban handguns and it doesn't hurt anyone's business > except a few gun sellers. Banning custom computer software will > drive a stake through the heart of business innovation and > competition. Most businesses do not want innovation and competition, and most governments do not want it and do not permit it. You do not realize how extraordinary and unusual the USA is in permitting comparatively free innovation and competition. In most countries you cannot even rent out laptops without a permit. If you cannot rent out laptops without a permit, why should you be allowed to program outside a sandbox without a permit? As soon as a sandbox is available, there will be a movement to restrict all unauthorized people to that sandbox. Most governments in the rest of the world see the innovation coming out of the US as a form of aggression and imperialism, and they are angry about it and want it to stop. > It's time for cypherpunks to remove their paranoia-colored > glasses. One apocalyptic prediction after another has been > proven false. Even post 9/11 the government floated one timid > trial balloon about possibly restricting crypto, and it was shot > down in a hail of criticism from all directions. The SSSCA appears to have similarly sunk, but "anti circumvention laws" were not, neither were "privacy" laws that prohibit some forms of privacy, nor overly broad anti hacking laws. The camels nose is in the tent, even if there is no immediate danger of the rest of the camel. COPA and the rest of that alphabet soup with "Children" in the title are still on the books. Businesses have found ways around them, and there is no vigorous enforcement, but eventually congress will come back for another bite, and close the loopholes. > If they can't even ban crypto, you think they'll be able to ban > Perl? They cannot ban crypto without first banning Perl. That was the point of the Crypto-on-a-T-Shirt movement. Obvious solution. First ban Perl, then ban crypto ten years later. After all, why would anyone want to use Perl unless they are running a web site? If just anyone is allowed to run a web site, they can do all kinds of scams and push all kinds of lies. Besides which hacking will make the cow's milk dry up. > To the extent that people fear the TCPA and DRM because they > think it will take us down a path to the mythical state where > only approved software runs, they need to think again. It can't > be done. Software is infinitely malleable, and it is this > property that makes it so crucially important in business today. Approved businesses will get licenses, and will be very happy that there is one more hurdle for potential competitors to jump over. If you are running a long established business, rather than starting a new one, the more regulation the better. After all, we cannot risk the cow's milk drying up. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG d9PIH31teeAWscL+PT9c3fd8hA2wyFLNnFSCsdMq 2lna9XnSiut372FRyn3baSiqMWZPAuJRA+x7kynJ8
reverse engineering, auto diag codes, blacknet, trade secrets
In the following case, congressvermin wish to confiscate trade secrets (auto diag codes) without compensation. The 'vermin do not seem to understand 1. about trade secrets 2. that liberated diag codes could be freely exchanged, published, etc. Consider that MS is not forced to reveal unpublished APIs, but if you find 'em, you can publish them. Blacknet's Automotive Division requests these diag codes. Mechanics Struggle With Diagnostics Mon Jun 24, 1:27 AM ET http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020624/ap_on_bi_ge/diagnosing_car_repairs_7 ARLINGTON, Va. (AP) - At least a couple of times a week, mechanic Ernie Pride tells customers at his independent repair shop he can't fix their cars because he doesn't know what's wrong with them. Go to the dealer, he advises. He has the experience and knowledge to service vehicles but lacks the closely guarded information needed to diagnose problems with today's high-tech cars. Automakers refuse to make much of it available to independent shops that compete with higher-priced dealerships. The practice is raising hackles in Congress and a vigorous defense by the industry. Figuring out what's wrong with an automobile is no longer as simple as poking around under the hood and examining parts. Computers control many modern vehicle systems, including the engine, the air bags and the antilock brakes. Mechanics now diagnose problems by connecting a handheld computer to the vehicle. The computer gives the mechanic a code of numbers or letters that designate the source of a problem. Without the reference material to interpret the code, a mechanic can't fix the car. "We just say, `We're sorry. You've got one option go to the dealer,'" said Pride, manager of The Car Store outside Washington. All repair shops must get some emission system codes because of the Clean Air Act. Some members of Congress worry that higher-priced dealer repair shops are using the codes to corner the repair market. Lawmakers have introduced legislation to require manufacturers to share diagnostic codes with car owners and independent repair shops. Also, the Environmental Protection Agency ( news - web sites) is developing a plan to require that automakers publish online all the codes related to emission repairs. Cars built since the 1996 model year must have computer-controlled emission systems to meet clean air laws. "Most vehicles out of warranty are serviced by independent repair shops," EPA spokesman David Ryan. "And the sooner these shops catch emission problems, the better it is for the environment." A membership survey by the Automotive Service Association, which represents 15,000 independent repair shop owners, found that 10 percent of cars could not be repaired because codes are not available. The number is expected to grow as newer cars replace pre-1996 models. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers says that requiring the codes' disclosure would make proprietary information available to competitors and subject to copying. The group supports the EPA's proposal, and most of its members have signed a letter of intent to make emissions diagnostic tools for 1996 and newer cars available to independent shops by Jan. 1. "It's in our interest to make sure" emissions systems are fixed quickly, alliance spokeswoman Gloria Bergquist said. Automobile dealers made a record $80 billion on service and parts in 2001, an 8.5 percent increase over 2000. Dealer labor rates tend to run from $10 to $20 per hour higher than independent shops, according to AAA. Dealers contend it is appropriate that they have access to sensitive information while independent garages do not. "Dealerships have a franchise relationship with the manufacturer, and the manufacturer can terminate that relationship," said Doug Greenhaus, director of environment, health and safety for the National Auto Dealers Association. "They are under contract to keep that information confidential, but there is no relationship like that with the vehicle manufacturer and the aftermarket." The emissions repair codes are linked to anti-theft devices, which is causing the insurance industry to oppose the EPA proposal. Getting the codes to more repair shops could make it easier for auto thieves to obtain that information, insurers say. "If you are a thief, the first thing you want to do is to get a one-week apprenticeship at Joe's Garage," said Kim Hazelbaker of the industry-funded Highway Loss Data Institute. Aaron Lowe, vice president of government affairs for the Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association, says a potential thief also could find work at a dealership. "We don't think their problems are real, and we think they all can be resolved," Lowe
please kindly get back to me
FROM:MRS. M SESE-SEKO DEAR FRIEND. I AM MRS. MARIAM SESE-SEKO WIDOW OF LATE PRESIDENT MOBUTU SESE-SEKO OF ZAIRE? NOW KNOWN AS DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO (DRC). I AM MOVED TO WRITE YOU THIS LETTER, THIS WAS IN CONFIDENCE CONSIDERING MY PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCE AND SITUATION. I ESCAPED ALONG WITH MY HUSBAND AND TWO OF OUR SONS TIMOTHY AND BASHER OUT OF DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO (DRC) TO ABIDJAN,COTE D'IVOIRE WHERE MY FAMILY AND I SETTLED, WHILE WE LATER MOVED TO SETTLED IN MORROCO WHERE MY HUSBAND LATER DIED OF CANCER DISEASE. HOWEVER DUE TO THIS SITUATION WE DECIDED TO CHANGED MOST OF MY HUSBAND'S BILLIONS OF DOLLARS DEPOSITED IN SWISS BANK AND OTHER COUNTRIES INTO OTHER FORMS OF MONEY CODED FOR SAFE PURPOSE BECAUSE THE NEW HEAD OF STATE OF (DR) MR LAURENT KABILA HAS MADE ARRANGEMENT WITH THE SWISS GOVERNMENT AND OTHER EUROPEAN COUNTRIES TO FREEZE ALL MY LATE HUSBAND'STREASURES DEPOSITED IN SOME EUROPEAN COUNTRIES. HENCE MY CHILDREN AND I DECIDED LAYING LOW IN AFRICA TO STUDY THE SITUATION TILL WHEN THINGS GETS BETTER, LIKE NOW THAT PRESIDENT KABILA IS DEAD AND THE SON TAKING OVER(JOSEPH KABILA). ONE OF MY LATE HUSBAND'S CHATEAUX IN SOUTHERN FRANCE WAS CONFISCATED BY THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT, AND AS SUCH I HAD TO CHANGE MY IDENTITY SO THAT MY INVESTMENT WILL NOT BE TRACED AND CONFISCATED. I HAVE DEPOSITED THE SUM OF ONE HUNDRED MLLION UNITED STATE DOLLARS (US$80,000,000,00.) WITH A SECURITY COMPANY , FOR SAFEKEEPING. THE FUNDS ARE SECURITY CODED TO PREVENT THEM FROM KNOWING THE CONTENT. WHAT I WANT YOU TO DO IS TO INDICATE YOUR INTEREST THAT YOU WILL ASSIST US BY RECEIVING THE MONEY ON OUR BEHALF IN EUROPE. I WANT YOU TO ASSIST IN INVESTING THIS MONEY, BUT I WILL NOT WANT MY IDENTITY REVEALED. I WILL ALSO WANT TO BUY PROPERTIES AND STOCK IN MULTI-NATIONAL COMPANIES AND TO ENGAGE IN OTHER SAFE AND NON-SPECULATIVE INVESTMENTS. MAY I AT THIS POINT EMPHASISE THE HIGH LEVEL OF CONFIDENTIALITY, WHICH THIS BUSINESS DEMANDS, AND HOPE YOU WILL NOT BETRAY THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE, WHICH I REPOSE IN YOU IN CONCLUSION, IN THE EVENT YOU ARE INTRESTED TO ASSIST US I WILL LIKE YOU TO CONTACT MY LAWYER WHO I HAVE STATIONED IN HOLLAND TO WITHNESS THE TRANSACTION TO IS CONCLUTION.YOU CAN REACH HIM ON IS DIRECT LINE WHICH IS +31-613-365-378 OR VIA MAIL [EMAIL PROTECTED] NAME IS PETERS AND I HAVE THE FULL TRUST IN HIM. I SINCERELY WILL APPRECAITE YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. BEST REGARDS,
Re: Markets (was Re: Hayek was right. Twice.)
At 10:25 AM 7/4/02 +0300, Mikko Sdreld wrote: >Luckily movie industry will not be hit by the free distribution as bad as >music industry. This is because a major portion of their money comes from >people going to cinema to see the movies. They don't do that because they >don't have a copy at home, but because they wish to see it in a big screen >with awsome sound effects. And that is something we just don't have yet in >every house - and something that will be a big investment for a long time. Disagree. Mostly young folks go to movies because its a neutral territory for *dating* with entertainment supplied. Older folks have nicer home entertainment and N-way stereos installed, also more heads to pay for. If you can afford $15/head for hollywood's latest you can probably afford a nice home system. And not worry about getting properly located seats to actually get the hifi audio/visual. Once TivoNet cranks, or computers interface better to home entertainment systems, Hollywood is toast. Imagine if KaZaa could *stream* movies from several sources, so you don't have to wait for the full download, and neither are you impaired by asymmetric upload rates. [Aside: Hollywood is trying to get tax exemption on movies made in Calif., which to me would make them vulnerable to treatment as a public utility, since (as a Californian) I'm paying for them. State-funded research is publicly owned, after all. Cf Faust.]
Re: maximize best case, worst case, or average case? (TCPA)
At 07:38 AM 7/4/02 +0200, Anonymous wrote: >James Donald writes: >> However it is a system and set of institutions that can validate >> that properly authorized code is running, and thus with a >> relatively minor change can ensure that ONLY properly authorized >> code may be run -- (Hey, we will protect you from all viruses, and >> all poorly written code, and all code that facilitates anti social >> behavior.) > >Okay, you are afraid that only "properly authorized" code will run. >Let's talk about one area: programming languages. > >What about compilers? Development systems? No doubt you'll claim these >will be restricted. They'll be like assault weapons. Use a compiler, >go to jail. This despite the fact that they are necessary tools for >technological progress today. If you have a need ---you are working for an IRS-registered business--- then you will be allowed to use a compiler for work. Much like gun business---Joe Machinist can make guns at work, but not at home. Joe Chemist, working for a pharmaceutical or explosive maker, has the same problem. After all, 'bad' thoughts/programs can do more widespread damage... will no one think of the children? >And what about interpreted languages? Python, Ruby? What about Perl? >Seriously: will they ban Perl? Half the web depends on it! How can >they keep people from running Perl? Sure, you can own a copy, and run it on your standalone computer. You just can't run it publicly. You can build your own car too, but not drive it on the public roads without State *permission*. >Or do you think that only "properly authorized" Perl scripts will run? >That will never work. Perl is tweaked all the time; the whole point >of using it is so that you can adapt your site functionality quickly >and easily. The script will have to present a State certificate upon request if running on a public site. Your license and registration, please? At random checkpoints. >The whole idea of outlawing programming languages and allowing people >to only run software on an approved list is utterly ridiculous. Never stopped congress or their armed implementors.. >Custom software is widely used throughout the world for all kinds of >mission critical activities. Business would never allow the government >to forbid custom software. Businesses will have 'legitimate' uses for compilers and State-certified programmers (a biz won't be able to hire non-certified coders, and the state will take away your certification if you misbehave). Misbehave and your assets are taken, maybe you'll be charged with something. >People point to guns. Computer languages aren't anything like guns. >You can ban handguns and it doesn't hurt anyone's business except a >few gun sellers. Banning custom computer software will drive a stake >through the heart of business innovation and competition. Nations register xerox machines. They confiscate radio receivers. They can close down the media. They require location tech in cell phones. They require CALEA in telco switches. They bust machinists who make guns as a hobby. Sure, bits can be copied and stored a lot easier. Deploying them isn't so easy. Look at the pedo-image busts. >It's time for cypherpunks to remove their paranoia-colored glasses. >One apocalyptic prediction after another has been proven false. Right, and habeus corpus can't be ignored in this country. Ask a hundred thou japs about their time in Nevada. >Even post 9/11 the government floated one timid trial balloon about >possibly restricting crypto, and it was shot down in a hail of criticism >from all directions. > >If they can't even ban crypto, you think they'll be able to ban Perl? >People who believe this are utterly disconnected from reality. Perl the tool, no. Deployed Perl applications, sure. >To the extent that people fear the TCPA and DRM because they think it will >take us down a path to the mythical state where only approved software >runs, they need to think again. It can't be done. Software is infinitely >malleable, and it is this property that makes it so crucially important >in business today. The government can no more ban unapproved software >than it could require companies to forego the use of computers entirely. But software runs on physical machines owned by meat machines. Both kinds of machines are easily coerced. -- "When I was your age we didn't have Tim May! We had to be paranoid on our own! And we were grateful!" --Alan Olsen
Executable discarded
We received a message claiming to be from you which contained a virus according to File::Scan v0.31, a Perl module from CPAN at http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/H/HD/HDIAS This message was not delivered to the intended recipient, it has been discarded. For information on removing viruses from your computer, please see http://www.google.com/search?q=antivirus or http://hotbot.lycos.com/?query=antivirus Postmaster Sender : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Recipient : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-Id : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: CDR: MIME-Version: 1.0 Virus : W32/Klez.gen@MM Original headers: From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Thu Jul 4 13:05:38 2002 >Received: (from cpunks@localhost) > by einstein.ssz.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA14453 > for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 12:14:06 -0500 >Received: (from mdom@localhost) > by einstein.ssz.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA14187 > for cypherpunks-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 12:11:05 -0500 >Received: from sunny1.pacific.net.ph (sunny1.pacific.net.ph [210.23.234.92]) > by einstein.ssz.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA14126 > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 12:10:36 -0500 >Received: from pop2.pacific.net.ph (pop2.pacific.net.ph [210.23.234.90]) > by sunny1.pacific.net.ph with ESMTP > id g64H1K228935 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 01:01:20 +0800 >(PHT) >Received: from Zvmczk (h6n1q8.FH-Muenster.DE [195.37.148.210]) >by pop2.pacific.net.ph with SMTP >id BAA15453 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 01:01:13 +0800 (PHT) >Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 01:01:13 +0800 (PHT) >Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >From: Martin-Leugers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: CDR: MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary=D121qVj054067s18WLF795HJO541JV40OB >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Precedence: bulk >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-Mailing-List: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-Unsubscription-Info: http://einstein.ssz.com/cdr >X-List-Admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-Loop: ssz.com >X-Acceptable-Languages: English, Russian, German, French, Spanish We received a message claiming to be from you which contained an executable attachment (batch file, script, program, etc). In order to protect users from malicious programs, we do not accept these file types thru this mail server. If you need to send the file to it's intended recipient, you must send it in an archived and/or compressed format. Your email has been sent to the intended recipient without this file included. A message detailing why it was dropped has been substitued in it's place. Postmaster Sender : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Recipient : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-Id : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: CDR: MIME-Version: 1.0 Mime type : audio/x-midi File name : Rvd.bat
Re: Bill of Rights vandalism, supremes don't ride busses
At 10:24 AM 06/17/2002 -0700, Major Variola (ret) wrote: >Given this degradation of the Bill of Rights, it would be pretty cool to >put stickers on bus seats, or in bus-stops, reminding people --whether >citizens or not, and regardless of their albedo-- of their rights. It would, and it'd be nice and patriotic if Greyhound did it :-) >Of course, this would be considered vandalism. >Writing the Bill of Rights was treason at the time, of course. No it wasn't - the Bill of Rights was written during the period that the Constitution was being adopted, unlike the Declaration of Independence, which was written during British rule. You might argue that the Constitution itself was treason against the United States confederation or individual state governments (under the then-current Articles of Confederation), and there were lots of people who thought it was a Bad Idea, but I don't think it was widely considered to be treason.
Re: Diffie-Hellman and MITM
At 12:26 PM 06/28/2002 +0300, Marcel Popescu wrote: >From: "Mike Rosing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Is there a defense against MITM for Diffie-Hellman? Is there another > > > protocol with equivalent properties, with such a defense? (Secure > > > communications between two parties, with no shared secret and no > out-of-band > > > abilities, on an insecure network.) > > > > What do you mean by no shared secret? The point of DH is that you > > get a shared secret. > >I guess I should have said "no *previously* shared secret". Fundamentally, you need out-of-band knowledge. Consider setting up a secure video call with somebody, and each of you reading the hash of your DH parameter to the other. It's really hard for a MITM to fake that - but if you don't know what the other person looks or sounds like, do you know it's really them, or did you just have an unbreakably secure call with the wrong person? If you have a shared secret, you can defend against the MITM, and Steve Bellovin's Encrypted Key Exchange and AEKE work can help. If you both know each other's public signature keys through a channel that's authenticated but not necessarily private, you can do signed DH, which works just fine. (Diffie likes it.) Of if you both know a public encryption key for the other, you can send an encrypted DH keypart and also get security. (Both of these assume that the private keys aren't compromised.) If only one of you knows a public key for the other, the one who knows the key can know if the channel's secure, but the one who doesn't know the key still doesn't know who he's talking to, though in many kinds of transactions, it's good enough for the originator of the call to know she reached the recipient without the recipient being sure of the originator, e.g. the recipient knows the originator trusted the conversation well enough to send a credit card number, and Visa said the card was good. Also, if it's a phone or video call between people who recognize each other, the public key cuts out the need to read the keyparts over the phone. >Well... I assume an active MITM (like my ISP). He's able to intercept my >public key request and change it. Plus, I now realize I should have put an >even harder condition - no previously shared *information*, even if it's >public. I need to know if two complete strangers can communicate securely >over an insecure network, even if they communicate through an untrusted >party. Wasn't there a protocol for two prisoners communicating through an >untrusted guard? Signature public keys or encryption public keys can ensure that you're talking consistently to a given person; I don't think straight DH can do that unless you've got other information.
Re: Markets (was Re: Hayek was right. Twice.)
On Thu, 4 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >A moment ago you were arguing maximum utility (your public good >argument). I was still arguing precisely the same point. If the personal decision calculus of the individuals leads them to freeride, it will also lead them to prefer access to old stuff instead of future access to fresh material, when asked individually. But if people are faced with the choice you presented in a setting in which it is clear that either all will pay or all will get free access, not something in between, and consensus is reached, then maximum utility is apparently attained thru copyright abolition, and I have nothing more to say. So, you might be right, as I conceded. The real point was, so could I -- the question about copyright isn't usually posed in this fashion, hence making it difficult to tell the utility maximizing alternative from the other. (The canonical references here would be Buchanan and Wicksell.) >If that convention ceases to be convenient and useful, ceases to have >utility, we should not continue it. Indeed. >And if you are going to argue from long established conventional rights, >copyright has been extended by twenty years every twenty years, so it is >not a long established conventional right. Quite. My gut feeling is that the efficient term for copyrights would be considerably shorter (say, 1-2 years) than the one guaranteed by the Berne convention, and that this fact largely mitigates the loss in welfare likely accompanied by the inefficiency we would get if we repealed copyright law altogether. This makes the moral argument in favor of free speech, against IP, far more persuasive. This is more or less the line of reasoning I use when actually advocating something wrt IP. >As more and more stuff piles up, the production of new stuff becomes a >less and less valuable public good. Unless we assume that information is highly perishable, which I believe most of it in fact is. Yesterday's news is...well...just that. So is any entertainment which has an element of fashion in it, which nowadays covers practically all youth culture. And so on. In the case of perishables there exists a more or less constant efficient level of production and investment in it. >At the same time, as with any "public good", congress (being in the >pocket of state created interest groups) creates greater and greater >incentives to produce more and more of this public good. True. It seems likely to me too that we're currently overinvesting in IP, though less than you propose. >If an anarchic free market underproduces public goods, government >subject to interest groups overproduces public goods, a problem that is >particularly serious with such dubious public goods as "defense", >cultural or racial purity, and so on and so forth. Agreed. As I already said, the really interesting part isn't the public goods analysis, but practical ways of alleviating the transaction costs. In particular, it's far from given that public (non-rival and so on) goods should be produced publicly (i.e. jointly, governmentally) produced. Limited term copyrights and patents are one way to try and deal with the issue via the market, by establishing a property right. We now know this precise approach, though useful, isn't quite as stable as we could hope, so the logical question becomes, what next? Limiting the term, if possible, would probably be a good starting point. Repealing those parts of copyright law which have to do with derivative works would be another. Extending fair use would be a third. And after we know that the market can do without such property rights, abolition logically follows. Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], tel:+358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front openpgp: 050985C2/025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
Protection of Ideas
On Monday, July 1, 2002, at 01:10 PM, Anonymous wrote: > Brilliant. Let the market solve the problem. Why bother with the > auction > part, then? If the market's going to solve the problem for the 2nd guy > to hold the copy, why not let it solve the problem for the 1st? The > fact > is, quoting this mantra is simply a way of avoiding the hard issues. > You've got to show *how* the market is going to solve the problem. > Why would content creators get "a lot of money, cash"? Obviously, only > if your #2 guy knows that he is also going to get a lot of money for it. > So you haven't taken a step towards solving the problem; you have simply > handed the problem off from #1 to #2. > > The fact is that the market can't solve this kind of problem. That's > right, markets are not perfect. They do fine for ordinary, private > goods. But information objects, absent successful DRM restrictions, > are effectively public goods. That is, you can't restrict their > dissemination. If you try to provide such goods only to a small group > of people, you've effectively given them to everyone. Ideas are not generally protected in any major society. (Certain _expressions_ of ideas are protected in specialized ways through the copyright and patent systems, which vary from society to society. But not general ideas.) People generate ideas. Ideas are usually much more important than specific copyrighted items or even specific patented items are. When someone writes a book, with lines of reasoning, new ideas, summaries of old ideas, those ideas are not protected intellectual property. Likewise, fashion and architecture and styles in general are not protected. (Attempts have been made, especially with the "look and feel" nonsense, but generally anyone is free to copy the "idea" of a miniskirt, or red tennis shoes, or skyscrapers. Could ideas even plausibly be protected? The Galombosians, a fringe subset of libertarians, argue that ideas are protectable in this way. "You were influenced by my paper on crypto anarchy, so you owe me $25." > > This idea of digital content as a public good is developed in detail at > http://www.tidbits.com/tb-issues/TidBITS-602.html#lnk5. Ideas are even better examples of public goods. A good idea benefits many people, few or none of whom ever pay for the idea. Good ideas are in fact more important than nearly anything else. This has nothing to do with whether they should (or can) be protected as intellectual property...or subsidized by government, as I'll get to later. > > Markets do not handle public goods well. It is a standard theorem of > economics that they underprovide public goods. There is no way to > charge > for goods that everyone can get for free, and ideas like Kelsey and > Schneier's Street Performer protocol don't work because of free riders. Apply this reasoning to the general world of ideas and arguments. Or, more prosaically, to mathematical proofs. Should we start charging for mathematical proofs? Should someone planning to use a chain of proofs pay a fee for the various lemmas and theorems he cites or uses? > The traditional way to provide for public goods is by government. No it isn't. People paint paintings even when the vast bulk of them never sell anything. (Even well-known painters like Paul Gaugain never made more than a few francs from his paintings...his fame came after his death. Examples like this abound.) Most actors don't make enough money to qualify for their union. Most writers never sell _anything_. Some of these works are used by others, inspire others, even are later sold by others. Altruism? Have I written upwards of 20,000 articles on this list and others. At least some of them were and are useful for other people. And yet was I paid? Was I generating a public good? Should I have demanded that government finance my generation of these public goods? > If we don't get DRM, that's probably what we will end up with: > government > subsidies of the arts. About 20 years ago the American program "60 Minutes" did a nice piece on how the Dutch government, using reasoning identical to yours, was paying artists a stipend for their artistic output. Warehouses and warehouses were being filled with the crud generated by these subsidized artists. > Most musicians and other artists won't be able to > make enough money to live on even if their works are relatively popular. So? Not my problem. After all, most would-be writers and actors can't make enough money on their ideas and artistic expression to live on without also working as waiters and waitresses and driving trucks. > The government will have to tax consumers and distribute the proceeds > to artists (and the RIAA, etc) in order to protect the content industry. And to fill warehouses with CDs no one wants, with paintings no one wants, with stages where actors perform plays for each other because the public won't voluntarily pay, and with software pr
