New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
@singsing must be a huge MAFIAA fan or probably even is one of them... So butthurt he is.
So it's a thing that dissolved by itself? If it's his property, it's his property*. Using a timer to steal it makes it less of a theft?
*For the record, I do not consider IP as any kind of property.
@deadbeef if it's his property he can take it home and lock it in a safe. But the government and legal system should stop protecting his so called "rights" on this so called "property" after 20 years.
By the way there is such expiration time even now as far as i know. It's just too long without a good reason.
Well, that doesn't vibe well with the fairytale that people pay taxes for protection of their property to
Santa Clausethe government.@deadbeef where I live people pay tax so that the gov can use it for things no one needs. Streets no one is using. To censor us with the great fucktards from GEMA... The country censors itself as far as it can. Can't listen to music from artists out of the same fucking country due to GEMA censorship.
Police and gov waste money on hunting some pirates instead of hunting pedos, rapers and etc. Fascism is politically accepted and so we have Nazi political parties. Gov too dumb to ban them after talking about it for decades.
No one wants this shit here. We had a demo today with over 250k people against this TTIP bs and all other bs with that the Americans and others come up.
You're preaching to the choir, I know exactly what gov is
Yes, Austria has 50 years, Germany 70, the US 70, Russia 70 and Mexico 100.
Only country that matters is US in this matter.
Ich komme zu euch nach Österreich wenn es da besser ist.
Can you look at my ip6im application btw?
1) F*ck equality??? So you think it is ok that not everyone gets the same chance in life, that some people should be privileged simply be being lucky enough to be born a Trump instead of a 3rd world farmer? I disagree with you. We humans are better than that. We, as a society, can afford everyone equal chance to be successful. Then it is based on merit alone: you work hard, you get rich; you slack off - you die in poverty.
2) Inheritance stifles economic activity in two ways. First, by accumulating wealth you are not consuming, money is not changing hands, somebody is not making the money they could be. Secondly, the parasitic family members are not contributing to economic growth, they are not producing. If they run out of money (which many do) then society will be expected to provide for them as they don't know work.
A new system is needed. One where property taxes form the foundation of the system. Or where nobody but the government owns land, then everybody just rents it from the government. You can build a house, a factory, what have you, but ultimately if your property is not contributing to economic growth more than it is worth then you can either pay for it or give it up to someone who can make better use of it. Such society, coupled with moderate inflation, can work wonders.
Would you rather take away Bill Gates's money, or tax his 13% return every year? I would choose the latter. Even if the rich try to avoid paying taxes, the money isn't "gone", it is invested and helps economic growth and becomes even more to tax..
@elwebmaster this ^^^^^^ It sounds like you do not live in a very social country where education is free, everyone has healthcare and will always get an apartment + food paid for by the government
Absolutely, unless you're some kind of anti-humanitarian monster.
You fail to understand the difference between money and wealth.
Why the f*ck would they produce anything more than for subsistence if they can't accumulate to later consume without producing?
There is no economic growth without previous accumulation. That's why it's called capitalism and not productionalism. It requires capital and capital comes from accumulation.
Repeats time honored communistic nonsense.
That is the wrong way to look at the problem.
Bill gates has every right to use his money they way he wants it, including burning it, but only AFTER he paid due tax for it. If google sets up an offshore where it pays "consultancy" or "patents" fees equal to their profit, then that is not their money, they should be confiscated, not even taxed.
The pizza shop at the corner cannot do that and it is not right for it to pay the money Google stashed away to keep the healthcare going.
UK boasts about their financial sector, City all the way, but then it comes a day when they say they cannot afford healthcare anymore, or not at the same level, because the banks needed more money this year as they could not afford the bonuses and golden parachutes for the imbecile bosses which fixed the markets and gave away the money for worthless american "subprimes" or even some of their own.
Yes, accumulation, yes, incentives, yes, wealth, but not from fraud and tax fraud, there must be an even playfield, otherwise the entrepreneurs of today will not make it, because they are suffocated by the big ones which control the government, no matter if good or bad, no matter if they bring money to the budgets or are just a drag on them.
@Maonique talking about individuals (not companies), the paying no taxes thing is probably mostly because when the value of your investment rises, you have not made profit (only when you sell the shares). So there is nothing to tax.
Everyone can do that, even you and the pizza shop at the corner. The money is still invested and helps the economy.
Not really, I'm more against intellectual dishonesty. It's one thing to just say "we think author's life plus 20 years is a better balance than author's life plus 70 years", I'd say fine that's an opinion and you're entitled to it (especially if you can back it up with policy arguments). But suggesting that there is a right to free access to literary works X years after the author dies, independently of the law, is fairly deceptive. It is only the law allocates rights in the first place. If you want to argue for shorter copyright terms, argue based on policy, not based on "rights".
You have wonderfully summed up the whole political philosophy called fascism in one succinct sentence. Very well done (I'm saying this seriously).
And which non-"fascist" country that has a strong culture of extra-judicial rights do you live in?
You couldn't even legally sing happy birthday in public until recently. No one knows The Beatles anymore, because they are not played on the radio anymore and you are not allowed to use their music without coughing up kingly sums.
Instead we get shit like this https://youtube.com/watch?v=2WPCLda_erI
Who wouldn't agree that this is bad? It's like the creators are forcing people to forget about them, by not allowing them to play their music for free... (even when you have purchased the song...)
duh, that is pretty good - just overused.
That's what they used to say about slavery. What country that has no slaves to plow the fields do you live in? Well, sucks for them. And while we can forgive Aristotle who argued on the legitimacy of "natural slavery" due to his other works, what reason exactly do you have for the future generations to forgive your folly?
Every country where they value "the word of god" more than common sense.
And in terms of copyright.. probably 95% of the people in countries with strict copyright laws just pirate it. When it's made illegal they just use a VPN. No one cares.
You mean slavery in the U.S.? Well, England was a good example of a perfectly fine country that got along without slavery at that time.
Now you give me an example of a country that gets a long fine while having extra-judicial "rights" (and therefore not being "fascist" by your definition) -- otherwise you really haven't got a point here.
IP rights MUST come into public domain sooner rather than later.
The speed of change is growing every year, global market adopts a work much faster and the revenue comes much faster than 100 years ago, when they come into public domain are incompatible with current technology, for example, in case of patents.
Humanity evolved on the basis of sharing and teaching science, technology, art. It is absolutely legit for the author to be compensated, but not until the work has been rendered obsolete, as humans we are all indebted to humanity, did anyone pay the guy which invented the wheel long ago?
We can invent things today due to other people which invented other things, not to mention those which invented thinking in the first place.
Regarding the works of art, yeah, that is a different story, however, the authors of those also benefited from the works of many others, they due to the artistic current at that time, to the founders of it, the technology of the time, what would literature be without guttemberg?
I think 20 years is way too much, even, you can have translated and spread a book in a few days, maybe weeks, collect the rights of multiple editions, then you can go to conferences and juries, musicians can do concerts, if they are successful, even if they give the work for free, they will still live well.
But it is not the artist we are talking about here, right? It is the IP industry, the patent trolls buying litigation rights, the unscrupulous record company which forces abysmal clauses on artists, they must be protected from those, not from the people which appreciate their work and would go to concerts, for example.
TL:DR As always, the essence is lost, the IP rights purpose is to encourage creation and reward it, while today only marketing and lobbying for more penalties and money in the laws are rewarded, not the actual artists, inventors, etc. This means the system is flawed and more draconic fines to go to the IP industry which cries foul when making billions profits every year more than last will not help society, only some profiteers with enough money to inpose laws on the citizens and almost slavery conditions for creators.
Omg, I'm talking to a US person. That kinda explains it, although it can't be just the shitty education in this case. Ehm, hate to tell you, human history is thousands years old and global. Yes, there was life before the United States existed. England a stranger to slavery? The country that owned almost 3/4 of the globe at its imperialistic peak? Amazing...
Can you even read? Here, I'll quote it in yellow for you.
Is that a joke?? "oh no they didn't have slaves, they just sold them"
Any country where the
majority ofpeople decidesto turn against the (official) "law". This is very prominent in Islam, where people go to Islamic judges instead of a "real" one (which to them is not "real").Fixed it for you.
The guy hears slaves and can only think "southern cotton field Negroes". You're venturing too ambitiously by mentioning Islamic social systems - best I give him is to think "terrorists who live in caves".
Sounds like well-adjusted non-fascist countries indeed.
But it happens in the U.S.,too -_-
@4n0nx: See? No idea and can't "google" fast enough