Re: Expanded Oracle DBA Site

"Joel Garry" <joel-garry_at_home.com> wrote in message news:91884734.0304240543.79de5534_at_posting.google.com...
> drak0nian_at_yahoo.com (Paul Drake) wrote in message
news:<1ac7c7b3.0304222256.312972be_at_posting.google.com>...
> > joel-garry_at_home.com (Joel Garry) wrote in message
news:<91884734.0304221547.39f053ec_at_posting.google.com>...
> > > Links are notoriously unstable (just look at my link page :-O ).
> > > There is value to redundant electronic copies in a distributed system,
> > > and in fact, that is a major feature of the web.
> > >
> > > And of course, as we've all seen by now, it isn't Mr. Rogers'
> > > copyright. Any copyright holder must vigorously defend their rights
> > > or lose them, so we all lose out in the name of potential excess
> > > profit. The legal system is simply too far behind current technology,
> > > and is going the wrong way.
> > >
> > > jg
> >
> > wtf is "potential excess profit".
> > please explain.
> > you've got to be kidding. excess profit.
> > yeah - and a certain part of my anatomy is *excessively* long.
> > at least "that's what she said". right.
> >
> > you may be entirely on with every other sentance in the entire post -
> > but - you lose me there.
> > there is no such thing as excess profit.
> > if some poor sod was willing to pay an amount in a transaction - that
> > is what it was worth to that individual. subjectively, there may seem
> > to be something excessive - but objectively, the transaction occurred.
> >
> > this will quickly descend further into drivel, but profit is a
> > short-term phenomena, which after a sufficient number of participants
> > have entered a market - competition will have driven the margins (and
> > profit) towards zero - to where investors will have received better
> > returns by having a passbook stampted at a savings and loan - and
> > invested elsewhere.
>
> This is quite correct, to avoid semantics arguments I would explicitly
> state there is a difference between what economists, businesspeople,
> and the tax man define as profit.

And not one of them has any concept of excess profit.

> > and that kind of economic theory depends upon the supposition that
> > people are well informed and are making rational decisions - and
> > usenet is no place for that.
> >
> > in the long run - barring a monopoly that something like the DMCA can
> > enfore - profit tends toward zero.
>
> Well, you hit it right there. The whole idea of intellectual property
> law is to create a monopoly for a period of time. This separates out
> profit from the cost of production, and ironically makes pirating
> profitable.

Huh? What we call pirating would be just as profitable without IP law -- it just wouldn't be called piracy without IP law. Of course, without IP law encouraging people to create IP in the first place, the pirates would have little raw material.

> So you wind up with fairly silly arguments like "posting
> a document on the web is morally worse than stealing jewelry."

Really? Who ever made that argument? Certainly, the economic outcome of intellectual property theft often outweighs the economic outcome of jewelry theft by many orders of magnitude. However, I don't see how that says anything with respect to relative morality.

I would say your nonsense winds up with fairly silly arguments like "stealing jewelry is morally worse than stealing intellectual property."

> > $18 (USD) per CD (plus tax) does not result in excess profit. it
> > results in profit - but it also results in people saying "fsck the
> > recording industry - I won't buy any more CDs". As fewer purchases are
> > made as a rational response to a usurpary rate, the monopolist loses
> > both revenue and profit - but no "excess" profit is made or lost.
>
> Well, you blew it right there. The cd costs, what, 50 cents to
> produce?

What did he blow? The CD manufacturer makes profit, the distributor makes profit, the artists make profit and the retailer makes profit. Who makes excess profit? Why is that profit excess?

> I'm not saying IP is bad or wrong, just ripe for abuse. Or "gaming,"
> as I'm sure Bill Gates thinks of it. And I'm also saying some of the
> unintended effects of IP _are_ bad. There is an argument to be made
> that the value of hjr's documents isn't in whether they are going to
> be sold

The value of hjr's documents is in the investment hjr made to educate himself about the subject, in his employer's investment to educate hjr, in the considerable investment of effort hjr made in creating the documents and in the marketplace demand for such documents.

My own skills as a programmer have value. I have invested a great deal developing those skills. Others have invested in developing those skills and have received an ample return on their investments. The marketplace demand for my skills determines their value. I own those skills. I get to choose whether to apply those skills for the benefit of party A or for the benefit or party B or to withhold those skills from all other parties. That's what ownership is all about.

No part of the profits I make from my skills are excess profit. No part of the profits other parties make from my skills are excess profit.

The profits I make from those skills incent me to have those skills in the first place. The profits others make from my skills incent them to incent me. Without those profits, I would not have those skills--I would have other profitable skills instead.

> but rather is in the witholding of information so that it can
> be sold elsewhere

Of course, removing the right of refusal would destroy all value. All value. That doesn't make the owner's right of refusal wrong. The right of refusal is a good thing.

> have you seen the price of Oracle education
> lately?

Obviously the marketplace values Oracle education highly. Do you have a point?

> _That_ is "excess profit" based on IP.

What property of "profit" makes it "excess" or "not excess"? How much profit is just profit? Who chooses? You? Who decides how much of your profits are excess?

> Whether it is bad
> depends on the usefulness, timeliness and accuracy of the information.

Whether intellectual property is bad depends on the above?!? Huh?

> Here's someone who is saying it _is_ bad:
> http://danny.oz.au/free-software/advocacy/against_IP.html

I've read the first page or so of the above and it already has too many fallacious arguments to bother enumerating. I'll observe that one cannot draw valid general conclusions from anecdotal evidence. I'll also observe that intellectual property law limits its applicability by granting only limited rights to intellectual property owners and by severely restricting the scope of what is covered by intellectual property laws. I'll also observe that no law is perfect and that justice is a direction in which to strive and not a destination at which to arrive. Received on Thu Apr 24 2003 - 18:48:28 CEST