Not that there aren't people who try to force one or the other system to stop existing. Despite being completely within our rights to set up a communal system, some folks (aka Microsoft, and also SCO which made some ridiculous claim about the GPL being unconstutional or some such) try to stop us.
Also, reminds me of something or other I read once... about gift cultures and such... Probably Raymond...
Posted @ 3:47 PM on Apr 14 by Geoff
SCO is just grasping for anything because with the exception of their "unfair busines proactices" claim against IBM (which is quite valid BTW), the rest of their suit is absolutely frivilous. As for Microsoft, they are the epitome of what capitolistic view is and since the two views are incompatible, they have to. Remember the communalistic view also has people trying to destroy the capitalists (The anti-SCO virus and the whole of the music sharing community.)
Posted @ 8:12 AM on Apr 15 by JimTheCactus
They actually aren't incompatible... And it's rather unfair to say that simply because some people (who often, I might add, don't have a good grasp on the concepts involved [which, I admit, is occasionally me as well]) who have the same viewpoint as others try to destroy the "other side" doesn't mean 1) that they are representative of the whole of the viewpoint 2) they are the epitome of the viewpoint or 3) that the two (or more) can't co-exist... just that some folks think that way. (Both your examples: anti-SCO virus and m$)
Would you want me to lump you with Timmothy McVeigh, because he's American and so are you? Or to lump you with Fred Phelps, because he's a white middle-class american "christian" (though I know you aren't christian... but otherwise)?
Also, I think you'd be hard put to prove that the music sharing community was sharing music for the purpose of destroying capitalism. Were they engaging in communal practices? Yes. Did they do harm to the music industry? Depends on who you ask. Were they doing it either in protest or as a way to harm the music industry? Perhaps some were, but most weren't.
And, yeah, SCO is grasping at anything because they WAY overextended themselves and needed any excuse to make their fight seem worthwhile instead of the waste that it is. _There's_ capitalism in action. There's no justice for those who can't pay for it.
Posted @ 5:01 PM on Apr 15 by Geoff
I'm not sure if you and I are working from the same definition of "Capitolisim". I'm working on the oe from Websters dictionary: "An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market."
Communalisim puts no value on investment, but capiolisim lives and dies on investment value. This is where the two systems are incompatible.
And unless you're trying to rationalize a crime (And it is one), music sharing has, on the whole, harmed the sales of CDs.
Posted @ 12:50 PM on Apr 16 by JimTheCactus
But in communalisim, the fact that the person that recorded the song doesn't recieve any payment isn't an issue. The premise is that they will recieve another product of equal value eventually as well. The way we ensure that this "fair trade" in a capitalistic society is by the accumulation of "money" to show, roughly, how much the society in general ows us to pay up that exchange debt. The reason that communalisim sprouted in our society is that the "Money" became more important than the fair excange of goods, so people began to do things that helped them "cheat" the fair exchange, like the record companies screwing with prices till they got an "unfair" share of the value. This process grew quickly out of control with information, things that could be easily created but where being sold for prices 100X or more over the actual cost of development. Things like software, music, videos, etc. The idea of communalisim, as implemented today, suggests that only the cost of the media itself, (which means the full cost of food, and about 100th the cost of music/videos when distributed on cds or dvds, and no cost at all for stuff sent across the Internet.
That's why they're incompatible. And I understand that lumping people together is unwise, but if you consider the basic premise of microsoft, they are persuing to increase their wealth through free trade, which would the show them as being the "perfect example" or epitome of capitolisim.
Posted @ 1:11 PM on Apr 16 by JimTheCactus
Okay, firstly: yes, for the music sharers to have done absolutely no harm then you'd have to somehow magically prove that not one of them forwent buying a real CD because of being able to download the song online, which would be extremely difficult to prove and is (most likely) untrue anyway.
So perhaps I misspoke. Now, on the other hand, you would also have a hard time proving that the sharers _significantly_ negatively impacted the sales of CDs. Is it true that some folks stopped buying CDs because of the filesharing? Yes. Is it also true that some purchased CDs they would otherwise not have because they had a chance to listen to some of the tracks first? Yes. Is it true that during the past few years the economy has been on the downturn, leaving less money available to purchase CDs? Yes. Is it true (or at least possible, I haven't done a study) that much of the music being purchased on CD was being purchased by an aging boomer generation, and that as they finished replacing their tape/record collections with CDs, the demand slacked off? Getting farther, but yes, certainly possible. I know my parents haven't bought any CDs for a few years... and even my sister isn't quite as rabid as she once was (and she doesn't have any illegal copies of songs either).
So, you see whether the music sharers have _significantly_ harmed the sales of CDs or whether it was a combination of factors wherein music sharing played a minor part, it depends on who you ask.
Now, for your remark about it being a crime. Firstly, I never said it wasn't a crime. Nor was I trying to rationalize it in my earlier statement (or, in fact, just now). I was pointing out that the actions of the filesharers was not some act of protest or an effort to bring the music industry toppling down. Their actions were to get "free" music. Or at least for the vast vast majority of them.
As for criminality, one can point out many things in the past that have been crimes which aren't now. But the topic of criminality in a philosophical discussion is irrelevant, since laws change. Tomorrow the congress _could_ do away with copyright. They probably won't, and would be in violation of the Berne (I think) convention, but they could.
Posted @ 6:02 PM on Apr 16 by Geoff
By "investment," do you mean simply the money that is put towards creating the product (including research etc.)? That's what the dictionary entries I'm reading seem to point to. And in that respect you're certainly correct. The money "invested" in communalism has no financial return to the investor, and so you say that communalism doesn't value investment.
But, like most people, I think you're taking it a bit too simply. You fail to take into account non-monetary expenses and benefits. Reputation (benefit) is one of those (and does play a major factor in "gift" cultures). Time is an expense. Expertise and knowledge are benefits. Certainly, in a system with money, money can be an expense as well. But, the biggest benefit of being in such a culture is the culture itself. As a participant in the culture, investing your time and effort into it, you gain access to all the "tangible" benefits of the culture (ie, in the music-sharing example, the music [putting aside, for now, issues of legality]).
I'll write more on the topic of how the two aren't incompatible later; I have to get dinner and go home.
Posted @ 6:29 PM on Apr 16 by Geoff
But look at the trends in sales, CDs have steadilty be FALLING not rising. Fewer and fewer CDs are bought per year, and this trend has been running since about 2001. If piracy, which is what happens when communalisim and commercialisim meet, is 'helping' the commercialists by providing some kind of advertising or what not, the numbers sure don't seem to show it. Not that I trust the RIAA (essentially I consider them the ultimate evil and prime example of the slime that is the unethical commercialist), but they are the best represenitive source of information for record sales. The information I'm working from comes from their report on annual sales, which can be found at http://www.riaa.com/news/marketingdata/yearend.asp
Since the MP3 format was introduced, and music file sharing became popular, music sales have fallen off their general rise and gone into a downspin. Unless there's some other legitamate media other than CD, Vinal, and Audio Cassette tape availible in 2001 (Which predates ITunes) then I would venture to say that piracy has hurt, and hurt BAD, the recording industry. Remember that live preformances are the property of the artists not the record companies, so higer concert sales can't be considered a fair comphensation (and you can't increase sales to sold out shows like Brittney Spears or Metallica anyway.) So I'm failling to see your point. (Plus they're already veterans of the recording business, I don't think that they really gain all that much experience...)
Posted @ 9:58 AM on Apr 26 by JimTheCactus
And that's where we're at so far. Let the commenting Continue!!!
Blog Filler... How sad...
Mood: Self-Dissapointment