Copyright and Patent Laws Hurt the Economy 597
Norsefire writes "Two economists at Washington University in St. Louis are claiming that copyright and patent laws are 'killing innovation' and 'hurting [the] economy.' Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine state they would like to see copyright law abolished completely as there are other protections available to the creators of 'intellectual property' (a term they describe as 'propaganda,' and of recent origin). They are calling on Congress to grant patents only where an invention has social value, where the patent would not stifle innovation, and where the absence of a patent would damage cost-effectiveness."
10 Years, not Infinity+ years (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyrights should only be a limited amount of time, not the current infinity+ that it is now.
More than the authors life is excessive.
A picture I took today shouldn't expire in 75 (if I live to 100) + 70 years, or in 2154.
If I had a son, he might not be alive at that point.
That is just way too long.
Their book... (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, I'm glad to see the description of the term "Intellectual Property" called for precisely what it is : propaganda. It's time for this term to be thrown out, and not to let so-called self-professed "intellectual property owners" inject this horrible term into the collective mind-set any further - it muddies the water of the discussion.
Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
This vile proposal threatens to sacrifice shareholder value on the altar of the progress of the useful arts!
Shareholders benefit because their money isn't going into lawyers pockets, and being lost to the invisible, incalculable cost of hindered progress.
(yes I know you were being sarcastic. Sadly, that is actually the majority sentiment on this issue.)
Re:Absurd! (Score:3, Insightful)
This vile proposal threatens to sacrifice shareholder value on the altar of the progress of science and the useful arts! The founding fathers would never stand for it.
There, fixed your partial quote of the Copyright Clause.
Genius... (Score:5, Insightful)
And of course, such a thing as "social value" can be easily determined before the product has the ability to hit the market...
Re:10 Years, not Infinity+ years (Score:5, Insightful)
A picture I took today shouldn't expire in 75 (if I live to 100) + 70 years, or in 2154.
If I had a son, he might not be alive at that point.
What I dont get is why your son needs to be rewarded for you working in the first place.
Outside of world leaders & royalty, no other profession gets a free pass for their children.
Are the children of copyright owners incapable of working like everyone else has to?
(not directed at you but at copyright holders)
Re:10 Years, not Infinity+ years (Score:1, Insightful)
More than the authors life is excessive.
Not necessarily. If an inventor is only able to get a loan on the possibility that the loan provider can get some profit from it (as is always the case), the loan provider will not be as likely to make such a loan if, should the inventor die tomorrow, their money would be lost forever.
Re:10 Years, not Infinity+ years (Score:5, Insightful)
The entire idea is to give people a way to protect their source of income while they labor to create more stuff. If it takes you more than 10 years (off the top of my head) to create something else that people are willing to pay for then you should find yourself a new career.
Re:10 Years, not Infinity+ years (Score:2, Insightful)
The copyright on Windows 95 would be expiring in a few months. Oh how on Earth would MS survive if Windows 95 was no longer protected by copyright law?~
Why bother inventing... (Score:1, Insightful)
... or writing if someone else can come along and make money off your invention. Just imagine if Wal-Mart could print and sell and book they wanted without permission from the author or the publisher. What if they could take your program or product, have it made in China for a tenth of your cost and sell it for their own profit.
I don't create the products I create for 'social good.' I create them to make money. If I come up with a unique and new idea, it's mine (or at least it belongs to the company I created it for.)
Patents and copyright exist to ensure that the creator is protected. Sure there are problems with the way things are now, where patents are being given a little too freely, but to abolish copyrights and patents altogether is just absurd.
Re:Genius... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:10 Years, not Infinity+ years (Score:3, Insightful)
The changes to copyright law have pretty obviously been made solely to benefit huge corporations.
That's the whole problem. If we had 10 years for a sole-proprietor patent, 5 years for a corporation patent, and maybe 12 years for a copyright we'd totally shut down all this wasted litigation money from corporations. I don't think an individual should be able to get a patent; if they aren't planning to make money on it, it should be given to the public domain.
Re:10 Years, not Infinity+ years (Score:3, Insightful)
More than the authors life is excessive.
I'd prefer lifetime plus some short additional period (say 10-20 years) just for safety's sake. If you make it just lifetime it wouldn't surprise me in the least if some bright, young corpling arranged for an accident or two to 'free up the rights issue we're having'. To a corp it may be considered an acceptable risk to put out a $100k contract rather than fork over a few mill for the movie rights. Just sayin'
skribe
Re:10 Years, not Infinity+ years (Score:3, Insightful)
What I dont get is why your son needs to be rewarded for you working in the first place.
Why should you indefinitely? 5 years should be enough to capitalize and come up with something new to sell.
Limited Time (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why bother inventing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Protecting your work from duplication for a time, allowing you to make money and, hopefully, finance future works? Good!
Creating one successful work and living off it for your whole life while preventing anyone else from improving on it? Terrible, and sadly what we're dealing with today.
Re:10 Years, not Infinity+ years (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree, and this also applies to patents.
Abolishing them completely is a bad idea - in fact, it would make people stop using their heads. Right now if something is patented, you need to figure out another way to do the same thing. Sometimes the new method is even better than the original. THAT IS THE [IMPLIED] GOAL. Without a patent, everyone would just use the 1st method and nobody would want to improve upon it.
But if nobody can figure out another way to do the same thing, the patent does indeed stifle innovation (since other inventions often build on top of existing ones).
Shorter timespans would still allow the original inventor the temporary monopoly (emphasis on "temporary"!), would prevent stagnation and promote innovation.
Re:10 Years, not Infinity+ years (Score:3, Insightful)
So how about a fixed period, maybe with an extension, and leave the authors life out of the length?
Re:10 Years, not Infinity+ years (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why would we listen to economists? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your post starts with the assumption that simply because they are economists they are not worth listening to before suggesting critical thinking as a positive thing that most of the slashdot readership do not engage in. This is either an example of an American not understanding irony or a brilliant piece of irony.
You then use the term 'reds', an old propagandist word, as if 'reds' are inherently bad before highlighting "China's lack of respect for IP" as if IP has real meaning beyond your own mindset, as if it is a part of reality that exists outside of you political environment. In doing this you demonstrate that you are not flexible enough to think within the bounds defined in the fine article which has clearly stated that intellectual property is a modern propagandist word.
Even if you disagree with that premise, it is important to take that concept on, suspend disbelief if you will, in order to understand the whole point of what they are saying. You are unable to do this, apparantly incapable of critical thought, so you can only miss the point.
Oh, and the 1950's called. They'd like their bigotry back.
Re:Their book... (Score:3, Insightful)
What do you call the design of your Intel Core 2 processor before it gets fabbed into silicon and metal?
Probably "Trade Secret"
Re:10 Years, not Infinity+ years (Score:5, Insightful)
What about "Life of author or x years, whichever is longer"?
I'd still prefer X years where X is single digit, or Very low double digit.
Just because its 'intellectual property' doesn't mean they shouldn't have to work for a living just like every one else.
If one album can only guarantee income for 5 years, then they would be encouraged to, i don't know, make another one! Or perhaps get out and find a real job. Either would be better for society as a whole.
Re:10 Years, not Infinity+ years (Score:2, Insightful)
What if, like many creative people, you struggle in obscurity for years before gaining a reputation?
When you get your big break and your work finally has some real dollar value, should large corporates be entitled to move in and use your work for free?
Re:10 Years, not Infinity+ years (Score:1, Insightful)
The main argument for the additional time is a lot of products that involve copyrights only get to market through significant investment by others. If any publisher could print a version of another authors works because that author had died, without any time period having elapsed then the business risks are significant. I agree that life + 10 years is far more reasonable than life + 70.
Reject the premise (Score:2, Insightful)
The issue here isn't "intellectual property". The issue is the property paradigm itself. Whether or not the proprietary period has been lengthened ridiculously to benefit Disney, we all agree that intellectual property eventually returns to the public domain that nourished its creation. Newton wasn't the only one who has stood on the shoulders of giants.
Why then do we assume completely and utterly that "real" property never expires? Why assume that once Manhattan was stol...er...purchased, that it remains purchased - not for 14 years - not for 100 years - not for the lifetime of Peter Minuit plus 75 years - not even for as long as the original Dutch nation retained possession - but rather, for ever and ever and ever?
The concept behind inheritance taxes is that the wealthy got that way by receiving special benefits from the body politic. Thus there is an end to wealth of all types. At issue isn't how "intellectual property" differs from other types of property - perhaps to the extent of not even representing property - but how we have all bought into the absurd proposition that Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are somehow entitled - could possibly be entitled - to squat on billions in filthy lucre.
All property is intellectual property. What is real estate but a deed? What is a car but its title?
Re:Absurd! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it says that Congress has the power to secure it, if Congress so wishes. There is no Constitutional obligation, though.
As for your essay, while I'd agree with you on some issues, and disagree with you on many others, I don't really see the point.
There are really only three options for an author who would see his works published. First, make a deal with a publisher. As there are a lot of authors (who tend to be bad at making deals) and rather fewer publishers (who tend to be quite good at making deals), the author is probably going to get a bad deal. Second, self-publish, but this is often inefficient, as authors are unlikely to get the best deals, or have working relationships with retailers, big-name reviewers, etc. The Internet is making this a little easier, but not a whole lot easier, unless your sights are set low (e.g. being the top dog of some sort of fanfic community). Third, for the law to treat authors paternalistically, not allowing them to make deals which outsiders viewed as bad (by letting the authors terminate transfers, or be unable to sell the entirety of their rights in a work). This is offensive, and it certainly isn't in keeping with the normal level of government involvement in business dealings. If the author were selling land to a developer, we'd certainly let him make a bad deal.
This is what we have under a normal copyright system, and I don't see how your somewhat Lockean approach really would help authors any.
Re:10 Years, not Infinity+ years (Score:5, Insightful)
Right now if something is patented, you need to figure out another way to do the same thing. Sometimes the new method is even better than the original. THAT IS THE [IMPLIED] GOAL. Without a patent, everyone would just use the 1st method and nobody would want to improve upon it.
Why don't we outlaw the wheel, then? I'm sure that will force the market to come up with all sorts of creative alternatives. We'll probably waste billions of dollars in the process, but at least we'll be promoting "innovation"! Isn't that what's important, after all?
Re:10 Years, not Infinity+ years (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:10 Years, not Infinity+ years (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd still prefer X years where X is single digit, or Very low double digit.
Just because its 'intellectual property' doesn't mean they shouldn't have to work for a living just like every one else.
If one album can only guarantee income for 5 years, then they would be encouraged to, i don't know, make another one! Or perhaps get out and find a real job. Either would be better for society as a whole.
Bearing in mind, of course, that you're discussing copyrights and the article is about both copyrights and patents, in some industries it may take much longer than 5 years to research and develop the idea - pharmaceuticals take 10-15 years to go from lab to market, due to all the human trials they have to run. The patent would be expired before the thing even got off the bench in a 5 year term... Or, if you want to go 5 years from market date, then imagine drug prices 10-20 times higher then they are now, because they have such a short time to recoup the hundreds of millions of dollars it costs to run all those fraking human trials.
But yes with regard to copyright. Those bastards should get up off their asses and make another album. 5 years between releases is way more than reasonable.
Re:Why bother inventing... (Score:3, Insightful)
Better yet, you can read it online.
It's freely available on their web site.
http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm [dklevine.com]
Re:Their book... (Score:4, Insightful)
A man has the right to the product of his mind, and to do with it what he sees fit.
I agree. The problem is that when you share what's on your mind with everyone else, now it is in our minds too, and we can use it just as well as you could. You're arguing against intellectual freedom and censorship. To argue in favor of copyright, you have to say that Alice has the right to censor Bob, merely because Bob is repeating what Alice said first. There may be a good reason to do this, but the right to censor others for no other reason than the provenance of what they say could only be artificial in origin. It's granted by the people who are being censored, in fact, which means you'll essentially need their consent, which is unlikely to be granted unless they're benefiting from it somehow.
Re:Different length for different product - (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of old 8 bit software we grew up with won't even run on most modern platform, but they're still "protected."
One is due to the other.
Re:Their book... (Score:3, Insightful)
The situation isn't good, but goodness, if there weren't ANY copyrights on non-implemented ideas, the idea of private "inventors" would be over; corporations could be in the business of stealing (only it wouldn't be stealing) ideas.
Ideas are about as valuable as air, so I really don't expect that that's a generally valid worry. People who actually put in actual work would still find ways to get paid.
Re:10 Years, not Infinity+ years (Score:4, Insightful)
What if, like many creative people, you struggle in obscurity for years before gaining a reputation?
You mean, like everybody else does in life? Start out small and work hard to develop valuable skills, contacts and a reputation?
When you get your big break and your work finally has some real dollar value, should large corporates be entitled to move in and use your work for free?
If your work has value, then make some more and sell it.
Re:10 Years, not Infinity+ years (Score:2, Insightful)
Why not? Why?
What I like is the implication that you somehow have a right to their work. Why do you get to decide that they have made "enough" money from something?
The "boogey man" of large corporations was mentioned in my earlier post because they are precisely the ones who would benefit in tangible financial terms. For instance, people are likely to still buy physical books and other media, so even if they only cost a few bucks the companies with the means to manufacture and distribute those things will still make money.
I don't agree with endless or ridiculously long copyright, but I think that people who high handedly assert that it should be very short are not thinking it through. Something like 30 years from the date of creation or the lifetime of the creator, whichever is longer, seems reasonable to me.
Re:Why bother inventing... (Score:5, Insightful)
... or writing if someone else can come along and make money off your invention.
Because you also make money off it.
Just imagine if Wal-Mart could print and sell and book they wanted without permission from the author or the publisher. What if they could take your program or product, have it made in China for a tenth of your cost and sell it for their own profit.
Good for them. If there's enough volume for them to do this profitably, then I've probably already made enough money and can move on to something else.
If I come up with a unique and new idea, it's mine (or at least it belongs to the company I created it for.)
Why? And what happens when someone else has the same idea later, should they be denied the right to their own thoughts?
Patents and copyright exist to ensure that the creator is protected. Sure there are problems with the way things are now, where patents are being given a little too freely, but to abolish copyrights and patents altogether is just absurd.
This protection comes at the public expense. And since it appears that this expense is greater than the benefits resulting from the protection, not abolishing copyright and patents is what is absurd.
Re:10 Years, not Infinity+ years (Score:5, Insightful)
Many great artists only had one or two truly great works in them. Some only created one (such as JD Salinger).
Tough shit. No one said life was easy.
Art is not a commodity which can be cranked out like a Model T Ford, and it does not obey the calculus of supply and demand.
Lol. No wonder artists are always starving.
Re:Absurd! (Score:2, Insightful)
However, we have the right to work through our elected representatives to pass the kind of "IP" legislation that will best "promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity", not just the posterity of inventors and artists.
Instead of being resentful of having to pay good money for works of art created by other people ("I don't see where Metallica gets off on telling us we have to pay to own recordings of their stuff"), why don't you go study, practice, and do research for 20-30 years, then you can have all the art, music, literature, software, films, investigative journalism, and academic research you want, done exactly the way you want it. And you'll be entirely free to distribute it however you see fit. Get a bunch of like minded folks together, and you can all freely share the benefits of each others' creations.
Why aren't people here complaining about the artificiality of the notion of physical property? Why do millions of people in China (and south Los Angeles, etc.) have to slave away in factories just to keep themselves and families alive, while others hang out at Starbucks listening to iPods while pecking away at their MacBooks?
Now some would say, wait a minute, I had to earn the money to buy my stuff. Well, so did the members of Metallica. What makes one system valid and the other artificial? I really don't see it.
Re:10 Years, not Infinity+ years (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it doesn't. Copyright exists from the date of creation in the U.S. and other Berne Convention signatory nations. Further, you cannot register a copyright on an incomplete work. Thus, what you are suggesting makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. There were some changes a few years ago that make it possible to pre-register prior to publication a work that is basically complete to help protect films from being distributed prior to their release, but that's not the same thing as registering your copyright on a book one chapter at a time....
Perhaps you're thinking about statutory damages, which cannot be claimed on an unregistered work.
Re:10 Years, not Infinity+ years (Score:5, Insightful)
What I like is the implication that you somehow have a right to their work
The same reason you have the right to use the English language.
The same reason you can use ideas that you've heard elsewhere and repeat them verbatim or modify them based on other ideas that you've heard/read or thought up. All without paying someone for the use of an idea that they "came up with". How on earth can we have conversations if people that come up with ideas aren't paid a licensing fee each time they're used?
No one would ever think about something and speak their mind without direct monetary compensation! In fact, I'm not really posting an idea that has been rehashed on slashdot again and again and again, I'm really just a twitter sockpuppet.
Re:The flip side of monopoly abuse (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong, AC.
What about 4 years ago, when there was a fuckload of venture capital floating around looking to be spent?
The companies that already owned tons of patents were looking to do what? GET MORE PATENTS.
Capitalism is Murder.
Re:Down with GPL - it HURTS THE ECONOMY !! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The flip side of monopoly abuse (Score:3, Insightful)
Capitalism is Murder.
We've talked about this before, but there is a difference between capitalism, and corporatism. The two are often confused.
What we have in America right now leans far more towards the Corporatism end of the spectrum, than true (pure) capitalism.
Re:10 Years, not Infinity+ years (Score:3, Insightful)
You should get paid if you're working. That's how it works for everyone else. Authors and musicians aren't special.
Re:Absurd! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the real issue...
Article 1, Section 8 says:... "by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
A copyright that lasts for 200 years (or even 20 years in our modern society may be too long... 10 years, I think is OK) is NOT conducive to progress.
Re:Absurd! (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it says that Congress has the power to secure it, if Congress so wishes. There is no Constitutional obligation, though.
There is no Constitutional *mandate* to grant copyrights and patents at all, but once Congress chooses to allow even one copyright or patent, they must do so on grounds that are fair and equitable for everyone.
Congress cannot merely grant copyrights and patents to whomever they choose based on mere whim. That would violate so many Constitutional provisions... Off the top of my head, the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments and the General Welfare clause. There may be more, but that would be sufficient for someone to force Congress to apply their copyright/patent rules fairly to everyone.
The Cathedral and The Bazaar (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll begin simply by suggesting that companies strong in IP are looking pretty good now.
GM is the penny stock.
Not Microsoft. Not Pfizer.
They are calling on Congress to grant patents only where an invention has social value, where the patent would not stifle innovation, and where the absence of a patent would damage cost-effectiveness."
Now this scares me.
Because it means that "social value" would be defined by the legislator, the bureaucrat, and the courts.
--- and how this new measure of socially redeeming value - could be limited to the denial of a patent or copyright escapes me entirely.
The politician, after all, likes to be pro-active.
I am not sure what it takes to "stifle innovation." I don't even have a clear notion of what innovation really means.
A patent only implies only distinction - a measure of originality in concept and execution.
The examiner does not have a crystal ball.
He does not ask and can not know whether you have accomplished anything significant and lasting.
The geek who would give the politician - the bureaucrat - that crystal ball and demand that he play oracle does enormous harm, I think.
"Cost-Effectiveness" is a lovely phrase.
Damnation in two words.
Big Pharm gets the Malaria patent because Big Pharm can quickly and safely ramp up to full production.
The little guy will botch it.
Cost-Effectiveness is about economies of scale. Technical competence. Managerial competence. Financial resources.
Cost-Effectiveness is also about papering over the politically unpalatable choices you know you have to make.
I'll admit to having become very cynical about this sort of thing.
But it still surprises me sometimes how High Church the geek really is.
Re:Absurd! (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I dunno. I think that you'll find that everyday copyright legislation would be judged on a rational basis standard. Sure, if copyrights were whites-only or something, that would be overturned, and rightly so. But granting copyrights only for books and maps, and not for music, or visual arts, would likely stand, even though it treats different classes of works, and thus authors, differently.
Off the top of my head, the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments and the General Welfare clause
Not granting copyrights is not at all the same as forcing authors to create and publish works; it's just a failure to encourage authors to do so, and to protect authors that have voluntarily done so. And bearing that in mind, I would love to hear why even outrageously discriminatory copyright grants would violate the Fourth Amendment.
Roll back the IP laws. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Down with GPL - it HURTS THE ECONOMY !! (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, I feel about the GPL the same way I feel about firearms... I'll gladly toss mine into the bonfire, as long as mine is the last one left after all others are in the pit. I won't need it then.
Re:10 Years, not Infinity+ years (Score:5, Insightful)
The benefit to the patent holder is supposed to be a head start in the market by allowing them to establish name recognition and other first mover advantages, not to milk customers in a non-competitive market for near forever. When the country began, it took much longer to develop and execute a plan to enter the market. Now days, if you can't get your foothold in a year or two, you never will. If fewer companies see shorter patents worth applying for, all the better.
There isn't supposed to be any advantage for the inventor. An inventor used to be free to keep his invention secret, and milk it for all it is worth. You are absolutely free to make an invention, don't show it to anyone, and turn it into products making tons of money forever because nobody is capable of reproducing it. Patents are a bargain that the government allows you to make: You publish your invention, so that the world can learn from it and improve the state of art instead of it being away, and as exchange for that information, you get a limited monopoly.
That exchange doesn't work anymore. If you look at patent applications, what the patent applicant publishes will usually not give anything of use to the world, so giving him a limited monopoly in exchange for useless information is pointless.
What the patent examiners should really decide is: Does the publication of this patent benefit society in a sufficient way to justify giving the applicant a limited monopoly? If not, they should tell the applicant: Go away. Do with your invention whatever you like. Keep it secret, hide it away, we don't care.
"WE only use it for good!" (Score:1, Insightful)
Yeah. Then you go bankrupt and your patents are sold to a troll. Or your CEO changes and your patents are bine "monetised". Or the economy tanks and you need the money...
MS apologists ALWAYS said that MS patents were for defensive purposes. Look what they're doing to TomTom.
You will do the same. Even if you aren't doing it now by threatening new suppliers with needing patents to stop the market becoming as competitive as it could be.
Re:The flip side of monopoly abuse (Score:5, Insightful)
When I see Enron and AIG and all pretty much lying to investors' faces, deliberately abusing the notion of deregulation, and eventually destroying tens of thousands of peoples lives, homes, and savings, I don't sit down and think "damn regulations!".
Maybe I should. Maybe you're right and all the work that the EPA does, and DHEC, and the FDA- maybe it's all just a false savings, and the market could correct against them without government interference.
Obviously, though, I wouldn't be writing this screed if I thought that were the case. I appreciate the phenomenal theoretical beauty of the informed participant model, both from a political and economic standpoint, but I cannot completely agree with it in practice. The fact is that liars are common, and their art is highly profitable. Deception, known in some circles as "marketing", is the bane of that theory, and the backbone of the modern economy. Add to that that our system is rife with the local dependencies that obliterate the free exchange of goods and services demanded by the founders of Enlightenment thought, and I simply cannot agree that economic issues should be allowed to ride roughshod over the social concerns of the day.
So when I hear someone ranting about regulation, I have to stop and think- has this person never worked minimum wage? Never pondered the implications of the forty hour work week, or of working 80 hours at the age of 8? It seems foolish- shortsighted- for us to sit in the midst of our comfortable lives, griping about the difficulty of accruing more comfort, and pondering enacting a system virtually guaranteed to grind the comfort from our lives. Do you think we would live so well without those protections? If so, how? And how can you be sure that that is true for society in general, rather than just yourself, or me? I look forward to hearing your answers.
Re:The flip side of monopoly abuse (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. The proponents of unrestricted free trade are like proponents of a frictionless physical world. Sure would be nice if it could exist, but the reality is that because of political manipulation (friction) the system is skewed so that some systematically benefit at the expense of others.
Example: When a large corporation sends jobs overseas it's called "Free Trade" and they even get tax breaks for it. When an ordinary citizen tries to buy prescription medicine from Canada it's called "smuggling."
WRT deregulation, you've also hit the nail on the head. Sadly, those advocating it don't even have a recent historical sense, much less a deep one. It took centuries to achieve things like a 40 hour work week, outlawing child labor, and outlawing slavery. These would *all* come back if we eliminated regulation. For those who doubt the last, slavery, because the efficient market would eliminate it, realize that slavery still exists and is on the rise [wikipedia.org]
Re:The flip side of monopoly abuse (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't just "seem" contradictory, it is contradictory.
Anyone can post with their own account and forgo the karma bonus. But the question is: "Why?".
If you object to the +1 bonus that a signed comment gets, believe me, it all works out in the wash.
Further, I want to make sure I give more weight to a comment from someone who's name I know and who's posting history I can examine to someone who might be an astroturfer from the Chamber of Commerce. Why? Because the Chamber of Commerce lies.
Re:The flip side of monopoly abuse (Score:3, Insightful)
The same way the "War to End All Wars" wasn't. The same way the "unthinkable" seems to happen all the time.
Sort of like "How are 19 religious fanatics with boxcutters gonna take down the World Trade Center?" and "Now that we're 200 years past the Enlightenment, how would Religious Fundamentalism ever come back?"