24 Apr, 2011, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 61st comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
Often the responsibility for building a road was passed from the state and federal government to private turnpike companies. Hence, the "turnpike" or toll road: once a company had bid for and built a road, it owned the rights of passage on it.


Yep governement telling a private compagny to do something and paying for it.
Without government no roads..as no compagnies could force people to pay to just move without being backed up by a law. Because it could not own the place the road is built on in the first place as well.
Your point was Tyche ? Confirm what I was saying ? huhu…

Quote
The cost of government interference, requiring medication to be prescribed by people approved of by the government (licensed doctors), drives up the cost many times more than patent laws do.

Are you backed up by any proof of that ? Or would it be that your licenced doctors cost so much because they are forced to pay for assurances costing an arm m and a leg because of the stupid lawyer world ?
24 Apr, 2011, Scandum wrote in the 62nd comment:
Votes: 0
Rarva.Riendf said:
Quote
The cost of government interference, requiring medication to be prescribed by people approved of by the government (licensed doctors), drives up the cost many times more than patent laws do.

Are you backed up by any proof of that ? Or would it be that your licenced doctors cost so much because they are forced to pay for assurances costing an arm m and a leg because of the stupid lawyer world ?

People playing the lawsuit lottery is another failing of the government, though it's a partial display of the low level of solidarity in the USA, which is (imo) a direct result of the melting pot as solidarity is greatest between people who are closely related. I've heard of people causing accidents on purpose in other to sue, which is virtually unheard of in Europe.

This mechanism would also explain why piracy is lower in the USA, as most software is of US origin; it's more acceptable to steal from someone in a foreign nation. Subsequently you'll see more open source contributions from Europe, though that'll change given the rapid demographic changes.

If the use of medication was at your own risk, and you could buy drugs in the grocery store, without needing a prescription, obviously costs would go down. Right now you pay for a monkey in a white coat to write you a prescription, then you pay for a lesser monkey in a white coat to take half an hour to read the prescription and give you your drugs. You're also paying for the education of said monkeys, which probably outweighs the malpractice insurance.
24 Apr, 2011, Cratylus wrote in the 63rd comment:
Votes: 0
Dean said:
Tar brush.


Did someone own up to doing it? If so, I'll get more specific. The last mod action topic I see is from Feb 14 and there's no notice I saw in this thread.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
24 Apr, 2011, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 64th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
If the use of medication was at your own risk, and you could buy drugs in the grocery store, without needing a prescription, obviously costs would go down.

Obviously cost woult soared up as people would go ill even more as they would not buy the right medication are they are not doctor, and curing an illness that went even more longer without being cured cost more.
You would say who cares if he dies cause it is not a doctor?…Well I like when the people next to me does not have an easily transmitted diseasd uncured….
Oh and off course that means you SHOULD remove as well EVERY taxed used to eDucate people, cause well if you educate people and they die young cause they cannot heal, it is a loss for the society.
Of course since every countries that does not spend on education is so more advanced than the one who do…who cares ? Right ? Huhu….


Quote
This mechanism would also explain why piracy is lower in the USA, as most software is of US origin; it's more acceptable to steal from someone in a foreign nation. Subsequently you'll see more open source contributions from Europe, though that'll change given the rapid demographic changes.

USA basically developped stealing other countries by not respecting their patent. Now they want the other to respect theirs…
A little like Chinese now….
Huhu, tough luck.
Piracy is lower first because your price are lower (yep cause for some reason US compagnies seems entitled to charge more for the same media in Europe than in USA, even then there are absolutely no more cost…oh and even PREVENT people to access to the same meia for …huh what reason again (Zone on DVD and blue Ray)
In the real world, if I enter a store you cannot sell me the same thing at a different price if I am black or white. Funnily enough not in the unmaterial market.
But they want the same law to apply then the brick and mortar when it does not suit them…tough luck again.
We enter a world were people have way enough of laws written by compagnies for themselves and againzst the people in general.
It will crash if ti does no change…you can keep fighting it all the way, you will lose against the number.
It is unfortunate to keep fighting though…cause in the end we will all lose.
24 Apr, 2011, Cratylus wrote in the 65th comment:
Votes: 0
rarva, I think you really should calm down and try to read more carefully what people are writing.

There are a few problems with your post, I will try to explain why I think so, and I will also try to
do it in a way that will be constructive. I am hoping that this will help you come back to being
constructive too.

Rarva.Riendf said:
Obviously cost woult soared up as people would go ill even more as they would not buy the right medication are they are not doctor, and curing an illness that went even more longer without being cured cost more.


It may be that overall social costs would go up. This is not, however, obvious. If
we had to buy food prescriptions from dieticians and have them filled by dieticists (I just made that
up but it sounds right) food would probably be more expensive, but we would be healthier, live
longer, be more productive. Note, however, that this creates a difficult dilemma: if we extend this
system to include the poor, it is almost impossible to sustain without reducing most people to
low standards of living due to crushing taxation. The resulting economy would be a money-starved
one, where cultural and technological advancement is more difficult to achieve and sustain.
The other option is having poor people not participate in the food dispensary system, forcing
them to starve or turn to a predatory black market.

Instead of this desperate scenario, we have food that is regulated to some extent but not
placed under the gatekeeper jurisdiction of an elite class prone to both conscious and unwitting
collusion. The USA may have poor, hungry, and homeless people, but by and large our malnutrition
problems come from people eating too much, or eating too much of the wrong thing.

So I'm not sure I see Scandum's suggestion as automatically cataclysmic. I don't see how it could
actually work, since people will be as careless with their self medication as their self nutrition, and
in particular are liable to mismedicate to the point of incubating resistant supergerms. But, assuming
that can be mitigated in some way, I don't think the premise in the abstract is obviously wrong.


Rarva.Riendf said:
USA basically developped stealing other countries by not respecting their patent. Now they want the other to respect theirs…
A little like Chinese now….


I'm sorry but I don't see a point in making this a nationalistic thing. Abuses occur
with great frequency in places where entrepreneurship and unscrupulousness are rewarded.
This is a risk associated with the freedom of places like the USA, and the regulatory
vacuums created by oversight-incompetent governments like China. I don't think, though,
that this merits bringing anti-US or anti-China sentiment into the discussion.

Rarva.Riendf said:
Piracy is lower first because your price are lower (yep cause for some reason US compagnies seems entitled to charge more for the same media in Europe than in USA, even then there are absolutely no more cost…oh and even PREVENT people to access to the same meia for …huh what reason again (Zone on DVD and blue Ray)


Couple of things here. It really should be noted, since medicine was brought up here,
that the cost of medicine in the US is so high in comparison to other countries that
Americans actually travel outside the country on medicine shopping trips. That's for real.

And that story is meant to help you understand that price differences in different markets
have much less to do with "American Companies Want to Victimize Europe", and a lot
more to do with "American Companies Want to Sell Things at the Highest Prices the
Target Market Will Support".

If software in your country is X Euros, it's because that's what the market bears there.
You might even find that if it weren't for your government interfering with the
the economy, it might actually be cheaper!

Rarva.Riendf said:
In the real world, if I enter a store you cannot sell me the same thing at a different price if I am black or white. Funnily enough not in the unmaterial market.


If Norwegians are willing to pay 3 times more money for software, mostly because
everything there is expensive anyway and they're used to it, I'm perfectly ok with
charging them 3 times more money, and if they don't want to pay it, they don't
have to.

This isn't a human rights or civil rights issue, unless you're saying that Windows 7
and Microsoft Office are human rights.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
24 Apr, 2011, Chris Bailey wrote in the 66th comment:
Votes: 0
Rarva.Riendf said:
Piracy is lower first because your price are lower (yep cause for some reason US compagnies seems entitled to charge more for the same media in Europe than in USA, even then there are absolutely no more cost.


Looks like Cratylus covered most of what I had to say but do you really think that international marketing and distribution costs no more than local marketing and distribution?
24 Apr, 2011, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 67th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
Do you really think that international marketing and distribution costs no more than local marketing and distribution?

We are talking about IMMATERIAL goods…so yes I do not give a shit about 'marketing' and 'distribution' costs about it.
The websites discriminate through user agent. Perfect bullshit. Oh no you are in France you do not have the right to access our streaming server for 10 dollar.
Instead, use our 'European' server:20 euros…
When said server is ditributed all over the word anyway. Governement is indeed not interfering…allowing this bullshit.
Quote
You might even find that if it weren't for your government interfering with the the economy, it might actually be cheaper! '

See ahead, just the proof government has nothing to do with higher prices, since it allows compagnies to act like bullies.
24 Apr, 2011, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 68th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
And that story is meant to help you understand that price differences in different markets
have much less to do with "American Companies Want to Victimize Europe", and a lot
more to do with "American Companies Want to Sell Things at the Highest Prices the
Target Market Will Support".

Government are not raising prices; compagnies does, with government support through artifical laws written by these compagnies. High prices are not because of the governement they are because the government does not interfere.
24 Apr, 2011, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 69th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
This isn't a human rights or civil rights issue, unless you're saying that Windows 7
and Microsoft Office are human rights.

A human right is to not be discriminated. So there is no reason a good that has no physical distribution cost, cost more (without taxes) in a country than in another one. Especially when it is perfectly identical.
24 Apr, 2011, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 70th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
but by and large our malnutrition problems come from people eating too much, or eating too much of the wrong thing.

Or cause basically they are so uneducated and head filled with advertisement from their younger age about bad eating habits that are indeed more profitable for compagnies.
Again a proof that a governemnt not interfering in economy causes more problems than it solves. In Europe you have laws that at least try to forbid such advertisement at school, and during young tv programs.
Laws that are fighted again and again by food compagnies…
24 Apr, 2011, Cratylus wrote in the 71st comment:
Votes: 0
Rarva.Riendf said:
<revolutionary invective>


You are clearly very angry about your perception of injustices perpetrated by corporations and facilitated
by governments. This is a healthy attitude in the case of actual injustices, and I hope you continue to work
to sharpen your skills at both identifying those problems and advocating their correction.

On this site, in this forum, on this thread, you will not fix the problem of overweight American children.

On this site, in this forum, on this thread, we've identified that there is a member who pirates and
advocates piracy while at the same time asking for our help figuring out how to avoid others infringing
on his copyright.

Your argument appears to center on the injustices of the world making his theft justified. Fine, I do not
agree, but I understand. There is no need for you to actually paint yourself red and post a picture. We
get it. Let's move on.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
24 Apr, 2011, Scandum wrote in the 72nd comment:
Votes: 0
I remember the EU fining Microsoft a couple of billions for a bunch of trumped up charges, I can't blame them for having EU citizens pay the bill.
24 Apr, 2011, David Haley wrote in the 73rd comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
We are talking about IMMATERIAL goods…so yes I do not give a shit about 'marketing' and 'distribution' costs about it.

My goodness – you believe that marketing software is free? You might want to get in touch with the people who spend millions on it. And distribution of software is free? I wonder what software distributors, publishers and retailers think of that.

Really… geez. You might have some valid points, but they're lost in so much hyperbolic invective that it's hard to follow along.
24 Apr, 2011, Runter wrote in the 74th comment:
Votes: 0
Fight the power.
25 Apr, 2011, Twisol wrote in the 75th comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
Fight the power.

0V7aUT13q..."> 0V7aUT13q..." type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350">
25 Apr, 2011, quixadhal wrote in the 76th comment:
Votes: 0
The problem isn't limited term patents or copyrights, it's perpetual ones. Copyright was intended to last 7 years, no more. If you suck so much that you can't exploit your creation in those 7 years, you don't deserve to keep other, more capable people, from doing so. But, as with everything in this world, lawyers screwed it up, so now we have double-secret-probation copyright extension. Up to 100 years and counting…
25 Apr, 2011, Tyche wrote in the 77th comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
Copyright was intended to last 7 years, no more.


The first U.S. copyright law in 1790 was virtually identical to the English law, the 1710 Statute of Anne. It established copyright for a fixed term of 14 years, which was renewable by the author, if they were still living, for an additional 14 years.

I would agree that the current term of copyright is rather obnoxious.
I think copyright should exist for a term of of 28 years or for the life of the author, whichever is longer.

Patents are different. I think they actually have reasonable terms.
25 Apr, 2011, Runter wrote in the 78th comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
The problem isn't limited term patents or copyrights, it's perpetual ones. Copyright was intended to last 7 years, no more. If you suck so much that you can't exploit your creation in those 7 years, you don't deserve to keep other, more capable people, from doing so. But, as with everything in this world, lawyers screwed it up, so now we have double-secret-probation copyright extension. Up to 100 years and counting…


Why not 5 years? 1 year? 2 days? Isn't it true that it's the nature of the copyrighted material that determines the length that's acceptable? Or rather how long it takes to "exploit" it? I'm pretty sure this is a simplistic approach to a complicated problem. You're making the claim here that basically it's *without a doubt* better for society that the patent expire sooner rather than later. So why have a patent at all, if that's better for society? I'm not sure it is.
25 Apr, 2011, Cratylus wrote in the 79th comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
quixadhal said:
The problem isn't limited term patents or copyrights, it's perpetual ones. Copyright was intended to last 7 years, no more. If you suck so much that you can't exploit your creation in those 7 years, you don't deserve to keep other, more capable people, from doing so. But, as with everything in this world, lawyers screwed it up, so now we have double-secret-probation copyright extension. Up to 100 years and counting…


Why not 5 years? 1 year? 2 days? Isn't it true that it's the nature of the copyrighted material that determines the length that's acceptable? Or rather how long it takes to "exploit" it? I'm pretty sure this is a simplistic approach to a complicated problem. You're making the claim here that basically it's *without a doubt* better for society that the patent expire sooner rather than later. So why have a patent at all, if that's better for society? I'm not sure it is.


The thing is not the length itself. I think this is Quix's point. The problem is that Congress keeps passing laws that
protract the time. Bizarrely enough, there have been members of Congress with a personal interest in
seeing copyright terms extended, and we've seen those terms keep getting longer and longer.

I think that eventually, it has to be concluded that laws whose effect is to indefinitely perpetuate
copyright without explicitly saying so but by tacit approval across Congresses are unconstitutional,
but I'm sorry to say it'll take more outrages for popular will to catch up with what's going on.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
25 Apr, 2011, Runter wrote in the 80th comment:
Votes: 0
I think Quix would agree that the specific half-life would be important. For example, just demanding any fixed amount of time (rather than indefinite) could yield 500 years. Would that be acceptable? That's an extreme example, but I'm sure many people who feel as Quix does would be against 30 years as well. 5 years might sound reasonable to one person, and 30 to another, or maybe 1. So I'm just curious why he endorses 7 years in specific. Unless it's just a nod to historical precedence.
60.0/84