To download, simply click here (https://www.e-junkie.com/ecom/gb.php?c=cart&i=115760&cl=25156&ejc=2&amount=5). You’ll be taken to a checkout page where you can set the price anywhere from $0.00 upwards. You’ll need to enter an email address before you can download it.

ThePiratesDilemma.com (http://thepiratesdilemma.com)

From Publishers Weekly
Music journalist Mason, a former pirate radio and club DJ in London, explores how open source culture is changing the distribution and control of information and harnessing the old system of punk capitalism to new market conditions governing society. According to Mason, this movement's creators operate according to piratical tactics and are changing the very nature of our economy. He charts the rise of the ideas and social experiments behind these latter-day pirates, citing the work of academics, historians and innovators across a multitude of fields. He also explores contributions by visionaries like Andy Warhol, 50 Cent and Dr. Yuref Hamied, who was called a pirate and a thief after producing anti-HIV drugs for Third World countries that cost as little as $1 a day to produce. Pirates, Mason states, sail uncharted waters where traditional rules don't apply. As a result, they offer great ways to service the public's best interests. According to Mason, how people, corporations and governments react to these changes is one of the most important economic and cultural questions of the 21st century. Well-written, entertaining and highly original, Mason offers a fascinating view of the revolutionary forces shaping the world as we know it. (Jan. 8)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

thanks, looks very interesting !

I might be going blind but what format is it in?

I might be going blind but what format is it in?

The format is pdf.

I just went through the process, it's a PDF.

It looks pretty good on the iLiad zoomed with full screen iPDF.

And it reflows for PDAs, too. Good job!

Wait, wait, wait!

:blink::blink:50 Cent?!? A visionary ?!?!?!:blink::blink:

I'm not commenting on that until I read the book.

I'm betting he has had many visions

Wait, wait, wait!

:blink::blink:50 Cent?!? A visionary ?!?!?!:blink::blink:

MobiCreator did a credible job of transforming the PDF to a PRC file. All the links worked and the pictures looked good. There were a few bloops where a page number was inserted but not too bad.

Thanks, Tad!

price is right

Hehe. "Pirates"
Whatever the perspective, it is a stupid term to use.

Some people use it in a negative sense: Pirates are those who steal from others what they have no right of owning. Pirates are arrogant and have a general "me first" attitude to everything they can get the hands on. Just like those pirates who attacked other boats and stole what wasn't theirs.

Other people use it in a positive sense: Pirates are those people who truly understand how digital content and the internet work. They are visionaries who sail the digitised waves and will lead us into a new future. Just like those brave pirates who sailed their boats around the seas and braved the waves and storms.

Basically, pirates have nothing to do with digital content or the internet. Pirates rape people. Pirates kill people. Pirates steal food from boats. This has nothing to do with digital content and copyright issues. It's as silly as calling hard-rockers or christians pirates.
Or on the other side of the spectrum: there is no brave new world on the internet. It's just a bunch of people sensing business opportunities with the changing culture of digital content. None of these people would probably last a month on real pirate ship. Or vice versa, real pirates were probably the last people to bring about any culture change sailing about on old boats attacking other boats.

Can't we just drop the term? It's just as silly when anti filesharing people use it, as when pro filesharing people use it.

He also explores contributions by visionaries like Andy Warhol, 50 Cent and Dr. Yuref Hamied, who was called a pirate and a thief after producing anti-HIV drugs for Third World countries that cost as little as $1 a day to produce.

Hmmm. Should we be applauding someone who ignores the patent rights of drugs companies who have spent billions developing those drugs, and who need to recover those costs by selling the drugs? It's not the cost of the chemicals or the manufacturing process that determines the price of drugs, but the R&D costs. Those drugs wouldn't exist had that money not been spent.

So yes, I'd certainly go along with calling this "Dr. Yuref Hamied" a "pirate and a thief" if he manufactured drugs which were still under patent without paying the appropriate fee to the patent holder. Or is he suggesting, I wonder, that people have some God-given "right" to drugs without paying for them?

So yes, I'd certainly go along with calling this "Dr. Yuref Hamied" a "pirate and a thief" if he manufactured drugs which were still under patent without paying the appropriate fee to the patent holder. Or is he suggesting, I wonder, that people have some God-given "right" to drugs without paying for them?

So how many people can die before you have a right? 10000? 1 million? 1 billion?

Sorry, but I don't believe that anyone has a "right" to such things. If you want drugs, the company which develops them has a right to charge a fair market price for them - one which will recoup their development costs, and give them a reasonable profit margin too.

In some countries (eg yours and mine) those drugs are centrally funded by the taxpayer. In other countries, they have to be bought by the individual. But either way, they are paid for.

Once the patent on a drug expires, THEN other companies are free to make "clone" copies of the drug at a lower price if they wish. If, however, you deny a company the right to patent rights on drugs, then no drug company in the world is going to spend the billions of $ it costs to develop such things.

So how many people can die before you have a right? 10000? 1 million? 1 billion?

And how many people will spend years of their life developing new drugs only to see it stolen by someone who feels their "cause" or their "need" takes precedence over everyone else's rights?

More to the point... how many people will have that happen to them and then spend MORE years developing new drugs knowing that it will likely be stolen too?

Your NEED is not a mortgage on my life.

Why should I Create and Produce if the end result is some pirate coming along and Taking it away from me?

In the final analysis parts of the world where massive disease and hunger exist don't magically appear. And the don't exist because those countries that are better off are starving them or spreading disease.

Those areas of the world exist due to corrupt and banal governments that care more for their own personal bank accounts than they do for the people.

Or they exist because people put tribal and ethnic values ahead of lower priorities like food, shelter and health.

Stealing from the wealthy (who became wealthy through work and dedication) to give to those who choose not to better their own lives does nothing but perpetuate the very conditions you condemn.

Sending food to Zimbabwe to feed the people that Mugabe is starving by destroying the farms does nothing but keep him in power that much longer and guarantee the situation will not improve.

Don't talk about pirates as heroes. They do nothing but perpetuate the problems they supposedly want to get rid of.

Why should I Create and Produce if the end result is some pirate coming along and Taking it away from me?

Because developing something for the betterment of humanity is the right thing to do?

An example: I work on porting software for the iLiad. I don't expect (or accept) any payment or compensation for the hours I put into it. I do it because the work I do benefits others. This is the whole premise behind the open source movement. There are many other people in the world that do this on a much bigger scale than me. They do it in their spare time, or find other ways to be compensated financially (charging for support, customization, "enterprise" features, etc). Those who can pay, do. Those who can't, get the product for free.

Why can't this be the same for medical purposes? The dying people in poor countries can't afford, and wouldn't be able to purchase the medication at it's market value. If someone else can produce the medication at a lower cost, and save lives, why shouldn't they? The original company looses nothing, as the people would have never been able to afford their product, and would have simply died without it.

Why can't this be the same for medical purposes? The dying people in poor countries can't afford, and wouldn't be able to purchase the medication at it's market value. If someone else can produce the medication at a lower cost, and save lives, why shouldn't they? The original company looses nothing, as the people would have never been able to afford their product, and would have simply died without it.

The appropriate way to do that - IMHO - is for the government of rich countries to purchase drugs from the manufacturer and donate them to poor countries, as a part of their overseas aid programmes. That way the people get the drugs, and the manufacturer gets paid.

The problem with "pirated" drugs is that they DO find their way back to western markets (look at all the "internet pharmacies") and directly take money away from the manufacturer.

The appropriate way to do that - IMHO - is for the government of rich countries to purchase drugs from the manufacturer and donate them to poor countries, as a part of their overseas aid programmes. That way the people get the drugs, and the manufacturer gets paid.

Ideally, I agree. However, if it's not done, or if the country refuses that kind of aid, I don't believe the people should just be left to die. (Problems related to overpopulation and whatnot are separate issues, IMO)

The problem with "pirated" drugs is that they DO find their way back to western markets (look at all the "internet pharmacies") and directly take money away from the manufacturer.

I don't know how much business these online pharmacies make. I personally wouldn't trust anything that didn't come from a legitimate pharmacy. I also don't know how much they sell outside of "mood enhancing" or "sexually related" drugs. Somehow I doubt that "life saving" drugs are their primary business.

Because developing something for the betterment of humanity is the right thing to do?

That's a noble desire... and in fact, one that the Pirate movement likes to proclaim. But if the world really ran on that, we'd still be roving the countryside in buckskins, hunting animals by throwing rocks at them. Most people do things for their own personal benefit first... including Pirates. Best to look at this from a realistic perspective, not an idealistic one (which is the chief issue I have with this book so far, but since I haven't finished it, I won't elaborate).

That's a noble desire... and in fact, one that the Pirate movement likes to proclaim. But if the world really ran on that, we'd still be roving the countryside in buckskins, hunting animals by throwing rocks at them. Most people do things for their own personal benefit first... including Pirates. Best to look at this from a realistic perspective, not an idealistic one (which is the chief issue I have with this book so far, but since I haven't finished it, I won't elaborate).

I haven't read the book (yet), but based on the Ars Review (http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/book-review-2008-05.ars/2), it seems that the book is making the point that pirates doing what's best for them, may in fact bring on changes that are good for everyone.

But as I haven't read the book, I could be off base.

Adam,

I have nothing against people doing things "for the good of humanity". As you say, you contribute a lot of your time porting apps to the iLiad, and I spend on average a couple of hours a day creating eBooks which I upload here.

But the fundamental point is that it is our free choice to do that. The "pirate" takes that choice away from the person in whom the law invests it, and I consider that to be morally as well as legally wrong. If AstraZeneca choose to donate $500m of their AIDS drugs to the third world, that's their choice. If someone "clones" $500m of drugs to which AstraZenaca holds the patent, and donates those to the third world, the choice has been removed from the people who should be able to make it, regardless of the end result. I'm afraid that I consider it rarely the case that "the end justifies the means".

Sorry, but I don't believe that anyone has a "right" to such things. If you want drugs, the company which develops them has a right to charge a fair market price for them - one which will recoup their development costs, and give them a reasonable profit margin too.



Does greed set fair market price? Sorry, I am not going to spill any tears over the "plight" of the drug companies. There is so much scamming going on in the medical industry that it should truly make people sick. Take the US genome project- how many "researchers" delayed providing results so that they could PATENT their findings? How does one patent a work of nature anyways?

And, for the past several years, the CEO of the company that handles my medical insurance has "earned" in excess of $400 million per year...."Fair market value"? Profit margin? No- they bloody well rip us off.

Harry, out of my respect for you, and the futility of a continued argument, we'll just have to agree to disagree. :) :thumbsup:

Does greed set fair market price?

No, competition does. That's how a free-market economy operates. There is more than one drugs company in the world - they compete with each other. It's certainly not a "monopolistic" industry.

If someone "clones" $500m of drugs to which AstraZenaca holds the patent, and donates those to the third world, the choice has been removed from the people who should be able to make it, regardless of the end result. I'm afraid that I consider it rarely the case that "the end justifies the means".

The problem with the "capitalism at any cost" arguments in regard to health care is that you are dealing with life and death issues, and the arguments aren't going to be taken very seriously by someone who will die without the drugs.

What would a starving man do if he did not have the $2 a store owner demanded for bread? Walk away hungry? What happens to a patient who cannot afford the treatment that would save his life- he just dies? Because it is the "right" thing to do? I think even Ayn Rand might have a problem with that argument.

I haven't read the book (yet), but based on the Ars Review (http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/book-review-2008-05.ars/2), it seems that the book is making the point that pirates doing what's best for them, may in fact bring on changes that are good for everyone.

I'm only halfway through, myself, but I'd say that description is essentially correct, with a caveat: The one group that the book (so far) almost dismisses out of hand, is the creator hoping to make a living...

"Artists not getting paid for their work is a problem."

...and that's all they have to say about that.

The rest of it just seems to be about romanticizing and lionizing the Pirate, linking it to Youth Rebellion, and supporting the idea that Convention is there to be attacked, never accepted, and not because you must, but just because you can.

(I'll be glad to comment further once I'm done.)

No, competition does. That's how a free-market economy operates. There is more than one drugs company in the world - they compete with each other. It's certainly not a "monopolistic" industry.

Ah, yes, the "free market." That's why so many people in the US buy their prescription medications in Canada. We have a "free market" here, they say, but many drugs are cheaper in Canada, where they don't have all of this beneficial competition.....

You have to face the fact that, unless you propose to "nationalize" drugs companies, and let the taxpayer pay for R&D, then new drugs are not going to exist unless the manufacturer can make money from them. Developing a new drug takes many years, and 95% of them don't reach the market. Unless the manufacturer can recoup the cost of those 19 failed drugs through sales of the one successful one, then that enormously expensive R&D isn't going to happen!

I haven't read the book (yet), but based on the Ars Review (http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/book-review-2008-05.ars/2), it seems that the book is making the point that pirates doing what's best for them, may in fact bring on changes that are good for everyone.

But as I haven't read the book, I could be off base.

There was a link in a thread here to a video of a talk by the author of the book and and his point was exactly that. Piracy like what Hollywood did lead to something that might be good for everybody.

You have to face the fact that, unless you propose to "nationalize" drugs companies, and let the taxpayer pay for R&D, then new drugs are not going to exist unless the manufacturer can make money from them. Developing a new drug takes many years, and 95% of them don't reach the market. Unless the manufacturer can recoup the cost of those 19 failed drugs through sales of the one successful one, then that enormously expensive R&D isn't going to happen!

My understanding is that alot of R&D for the more "popular" maladies are covered by grants.... also, alot of universities do research and such... then the drug companies come in an buy manufacture and distrubtion rights. I am talking about stuff like cancer, HIV, diabetes, etc.

BOb

I agree that a lot of the research is done in universities, but it's still funded by companies like AstroZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline. My basic argument does, I believe, still hold. No profit from sales of the rare successful drug inevitably leads to fewer (or, if we take it to its logical conclusion, no) new drugs. The companies need to make billions from the drugs which do work to pay for all the ones which don't.

The third world will not be a significant player in the free market game for a looooong time. As such they will not be able to play according to succesfully play the free market game for a looooong time, which also means that they won't be able to buy those western medicines for a loooooong time. Really according to the whole free market theory, why would somebody ever sell to the third world. There really is hardly any possibility to make any money from Africa.
I'm frankly appalled at the whole "let them die, if they can't pay" sentiment on display in this thread. I can deal with the whole anti file sharing sentiment that bows down to the billions dollar digital content industry instead of the common good, but seriously this I can't stomach.

People are dying by the thousands in Africa. And since there is no money to be made from Africa anyway, why should they not get the medicine for a fair price? Capitalism and the free market isn't infallible. Intellectual property isn't some dogma that needs to be upheld even when it means the death of thousands of people that can't play along in the game of capitalism.
This is why I don't believe in intellectual property. It's not just a stupid concept that the rich invented not so long ago, it is also a concept that kills people.

There was a link in a thread here to a video of a talk by the author of the book and and his point was exactly that. Piracy like what Hollywood did lead to something that might be good for everybody.

While I suppose you could argue it was good for the Hollywood producers and the audience, the "star machine" of Hollywood routinely treated the bulk of its actors and actresses like cattle, ground them out and discarded them when done. Writers and technicians were treated even worse. So, again, the moguls got rich, the people got their bread and circuses, and the creators got the shaft.

It wasn't until years later, when the unions won fair treatment for its members, that the system could be said to be "good for everybody," IMO. Pirates didn't accomplish that. Organization did.

Argue what you want about the Pirates... but their ultimate lack of appreciation for the creator and their efforts, and their right to be compensated for those efforts, is just plain sad.

Pieter, a loooong time is 20 years (max). Remember patent is limited to 20 years (much of which is burned up the the drug testing process). Once the 20 years are up, the third world can produce all the drug it wants, without paying big pharma.

While I suppose you could argue it was good for the Hollywood producers and the audience, the "star machine" of Hollywood routinely treated the bulk of its actors and actresses like cattle, ground them out and discarded them when done. Writers and technicians were treated even worse. So, again, the moguls got rich, the people got their bread and circuses, and the creators got the shaft.


Steve, even in the 1920' and 30's, when the talent was being shafted the hardest, they were still making 2-10 times what equivalent labor was making elsewhere in other industries (and i'm talking about the "little people" working behind the scenes.)

There really is hardly any possibility to make any money from Africa.

(I had to go back and look, to see how this sub-thread got started.) The problems in Africa are partly Africa's own, and partly (mostly) the fault of the Old and New Worlds... unfortunately, while Africa is struggling to help itself, the Old and New Worlds haven't been doing their part to help.

This isn't a fault of Intellectual Property, or the Free Market system. This is the fault of politicians and the public refusing to help in anything but token amounts.

This is why I don't believe in intellectual property. It's not just a stupid concept that the rich invented not so long ago, it is also a concept that kills people.

IP won't help Africa if the rest of the world won't extend a hand, to help them pull themselves up. Governments could easily solve the problem by buying the drugs outright, and sending them over. So could the public (you). IP doesn't prevent that. Publicly-sanctioned disinterest does.

So don't blame IP for Africa's troubles... blame the indifference of the rest of the world.

Pieter, a loooong time is 20 years (max). Remember patent is limited to 20 years (much of which is burned up the the drug testing process). Once the 20 years are up, the third world can produce all the drug it wants, without paying big pharma.

Tell the millions of people in Africa that have Aids that a looooong time will be max 20 years. For them it might as well be 200 years, because they will be just as dead then.

(I had to go back and look, to see how this sub-thread got started.) The problems in Africa are partly Africa's own, and partly (mostly) the fault of the Old and New Worlds... unfortunately, while Africa is struggling to help itself, the Old and New Worlds haven't been doing their part to help.

This isn't a fault of Intellectual Property, or the Free Market system. This is the fault of politicians and the public refusing to help in anything but token amounts.



IP won't help Africa if the rest of the world won't extend a hand, to help them pull themselves up. Governments could easily solve the problem by buying the drugs outright, and sending them over. So could the public (you). IP doesn't prevent that. Publicly-sanctioned disinterest does.

So don't blame IP for Africa's troubles... blame the indifference of the rest of the world.

It doesn't matter who's fault it is. A strong case could be made that the "free market" and capitalist history is at least partly responsible for it though. A strong case could also be made that Intellectual Property plays a part of keeping the first world far ahead of the third world. (I won't even start about intellectual property on genetically altered seeds which keep farmers in Africa dependent on western suppliers).

And, yes, I blame the indifference. Very much so. But Intellectual Property effectively is the tool that gets wielded by this indifference. Basically you're saying Intellectual Property can be worked around if only we (me and my government) pay. How about this company's indifference? Hiding behind some mantra "sorry, it's intellectual property, that's just how it works, kid.". THAT is indifference. Let's give THIS indifference less tools to work with, by not taking this new invention of intellectual property serious.

It's not that long ago the US didn't take it serious btw. But I guess in those days it was not in it's best own interests to take it serious.

I'll repeat. People are dying right now, because intellectual property getting wielded with indifference.

Steve, even in the 1920' and 30's, when the talent was being shafted the hardest, they were still making 2-10 times what equivalent labor was making elsewhere in other industries (and i'm talking about the "little people" working behind the scenes.)

I'm frankly skeptical (If that were true, why would you unionize in the first place?), but I won't belabor the point. I will say that William Fox's move to Hollywood to escape Edison had nothing to do with altruistic motives of "making things better for everybody"... it was all about making more money for Fox.

Tell the millions of people in Africa that have Aids that a looooong time will be max 20 years. For them it might as well be 200 years, because they will be just as dead then.


<Sigh>. The answer to AIDS in Africa is cultural, not drugs. As long as the current sexual mores in Africa remain unchanged, the epidemic will never die out. Look at what's been done to control AIDS in Thailand. Currently, drugs are just pallitives, they don't <cure> the disease. Eventually, you get drug resistant strains, and the drugs become worthless. When that happens, the patient starts passing around the resistant strain. (The same problem occurs with malaria, and bacterial antibiotics.) Finally, if the rich patent world stops making new drugs, because there is no profit in it, then you'll be back to square one in 15 to 20 years, with no effective drugs left.

I'm frankly skeptical (If that were true, why would you unionize in the first place?), but I won't belabor the point. I will say that William Fox's move to Hollywood to escape Edison had nothing to do with altruistic motives of "making things better for everybody"... it was all about making more money for Fox.

May I suggest the book "The Whole Equation" by David Thompson? It's a good read, as well.

It doesn't matter who's fault it is. A strong case could be made that the "free market" and capitalist history is at least partly responsible for it though. A strong case could also be made that Intellectual Property plays a part of keeping the first world far ahead of the third world. (I won't even start about intellectual property on genetically altered seeds which keep farmers in Africa dependent on western suppliers).

Businesses are in business to make money, plain and simple. They are not, by their nature or design, charities. You don't blame a business for not being charitable enough, any more than you'd blame a dog for not being able to fly.

Charities get started by people who see a need in one place, a product or service in another that can be applied to that need, and making the effort to connect them through its own channels, including private and public support. In the absence of governments or other organizations, charities step in to satisfy that need. Charities and other organizations are already doing exactly this. Any ineffectiveness on their part is largely due to a lack of private and public support, not on any effort by businesses to stifle their efforts.

So don't blame businesses for not giving their products away to Africa. Blame you, and me, and everyone else, for not buying those drugs ourselves and sending them, or convincing our governments and charities to buy and send them. It does matter whose fault it is. Blame us for ignoring Africa... not IP.

May I suggest the book "The Whole Equation" by David Thompson? It's a good read, as well.

I'll look for it (I don't suppose it's in an electronic format?)...

I'll look for it (I don't suppose it's in an electronic format?)...

Sorry, checked ebookmall and amazon (kindle). No e-book available. Used paperback available from under $5 at amazon.

:dots:

Businesses are in business to make money, plain and simple. They are not, by their nature or design, charities. You don't blame a business for not being charitable enough, any more than you'd blame a dog for not being able to fly.

Charities get started by people who see a need in one place, a product or service in another that can be applied to that need, and making the effort to connect them through its own channels, including private and public support. In the absence of governments or other organizations, charities step in to satisfy that need. Charities and other organizations are already doing exactly this. Any ineffectiveness on their part is largely due to a lack of private and public support, not on any effort by businesses to stifle their efforts.

So don't blame businesses for not giving their products away to Africa. Blame you, and me, and everyone else, for not buying those drugs ourselves and sending them, or convincing our governments and charities to buy and send them. It does matter whose fault it is. Blame us for ignoring Africa... not IP.

Uhm if I suddenly say that my only goal is to make as much money as a I can does that suddenly stop me being morally responsible? Where is that big moral rule that businesses can't be held morally responsible, just because somebody said their only goal is to make money? Is that part of the same set of dogmas as intellectual property? Businesses are run by people. Actually they are nothing else. Not some mystical entity. And those people have moral obligations when they way they make money means people are dying.

If a medical company has the opportunity to help save thousands of lives, how is that not their moral obligation? Because of intellectual property? Making money is not some God given right even when it means people are dying because you need to make money. Neither is intellectual property a God given right as a necessary tool for a business to keep making money while people are dying.

And you have no idea what I've given for people in Africa, but that doesn't change this medical company's moral obligations. People are dying and we let them in the name of intellectual property. I blame intellectual property for making us ignore Africa. For making us able to hide behind it.

:vulcan:

Uhm if I suddenly say that my only goal is to make as much money as a I can does that suddenly stop me being morally responsible? Where is that big moral rule that businesses can't be held morally responsible, just because somebody said their only goal is to make money? Is that part of the same set of dogmas as intellectual property? Businesses are run by people. Actually they are nothing else. Not some mystical entity. And those people have moral obligations when they way they make money means people are dying.

If a medical company has the opportunity to help save thousands of lives, how is that not their moral obligation? Because of intellectual property? Making money is not some God given right even when it means people are dying because you need to make money. Neither is intellectual property a God given right as a necessary tool for a business to keep making money while people are dying.

And you have no idea what I've given for people in Africa, but that doesn't change this medical company's moral obligations. People are dying and we let them in the name of intellectual property. I blame intellectual property for making us ignore Africa. For making us able to hide behind it.

I'm not saying the system is perfect, but you really need to see the excellent documentary called "The Corporation".:thumbsup:

Corporations really are soulless, money grubbing, amoral entities legally created to remove the moral ambiguity of pursuing profit above anything else.:(

That's why they have nameless, and often faceless, people called stock holders. The corporations sole purpose is to provide a return of investment to stock holders, in fact, in the US, it is a legal requirement.

Once you come to that undestanding, then companies that are the exception to the rule are the ones you can focus to give your support.

It's like the old story about the snake that finally bites the man after the man has helped him: "Well, you knew I was a snake all along. Why are you surprised now that I've bitten and poisoned you?'

::stepping up on Soapbox::

Lot's of great points made here from all perspectives, but I will end that record by adding my opinion.

I can only speak for the U.S., but here corporations are sociopaths. They are sociopaths because they are incapable of doing anything that does not benefit itself. By law they are required to be sociopaths. If a corporation gave 500 million dollars worth of drugs to the poor, without having a stellar claim that the act would be recouped beyond the 500 million dollar giveaway (as an advertisement and public good will enhancing revenue) they would be sued by their shareholders until not a single corporate nameplate remained. And if they discovered a way to make money by killing 1 billion people legally, or conniving property from the public, they must do it! Shareholder value is all that is important!

And, since the 1880's corporations have been considered legal persons in the U.S. Legal persons with no regard for anything but their own benefit.

i.e. sociopaths.

As sociopaths amongst us, they need to be watched carefully and restrained from harming other persons in our society.

When these sociopaths legally have a complete disregard for human life, their actions must be countered. Additionally while fending off the sociopaths, we are not dismissed from our own obligations to do what is right individually and together for the benefit of others.

Should this be done by illegal means, such as piracy? Hopefully not. But remember that when Gandhi marched to the sea to harvest salt, he was breaking the law. Just because it is illegal, does not necessarily make it morally wrong. (And adversly, just because it is legal does not make it morally right).

::jumping down from soapbox::

Did I just compare Gandhi to pirates?

Gosh, I hope not!

Businesses are in business to make money, plain and simple.

Why do you believe that? I know a lot of businesses that have other goals and are only interested in making enough money to satisfy these goals.

Why do you believe that? I know a lot of businesses that have other goals and are only interested in making enough money to satisfy these goals.

It's because you live in Sweden which has a completely different set of rules, laws and culture than the US.:bulb2:

Corporations like Google can get away with the public statement about "Do no evil" because they are consistently turning a healthy profit for their shareholders.

Let that profit diminish and see how long that slogan holds up.:chinscratch:

And then see how fast you have a Carl Ichan-type shareholder trying to pull a Yahoo! on them.:chinscratch:

Corporations like Google can get away with the public statement about "Do no evil" because they are consistently turning a healthy profit for their shareholders.

Let that profit diminish and see how long that slogan holds up.:chinscratch:

Hopefully it holds up...

But all businesses are not corporations and all businesses do not have share holders.

Why do you believe that? I know a lot of businesses that have other goals and are only interested in making enough money to satisfy these goals.

In the U.S., we call those "non-profit organizations." They are very different entities from for-profit businesses. And they rarely make products that are competitive with other products... if they "make" anything tangible at all.

Hopefully it holds up...

But all businesses are not corporations and all businesses do not have share holders.

True, but here in the US at least, we tend to use the terms interchangeably.:o

Which is why there are probably businesses out there who do just what you suggest, but very few corporations.

Businesses are free if they are a sole proprietership or partnership, maybe even an LLC (Limited Liability Company), to engage in "kinder, gentler" business practices. But even those kinds of businesses tend to lean philosophically toward the model of the corporation.

And again, I am only speaking from my own personal American citizen/business observer point of view.;)

In the U.S., we call those "non-profit organizations." They are very different entities from for-profit businesses. And they rarely make products that are competitive with other products... if they "make" anything tangible at all.

I had to chuckle about this post <G>. Microsoft Corp., one of our "premier" for-profit software-producing entities, makes products that are inferior to many of the "free" alternatives. BSD, for example, blows Windows away in terms of stability, reliability, and of course- cost. I administer numerous BSD, Windows, and Linux servers- ALL of my BSD machines have been up for over a year now. Windows? Well, I have managed to keep a few going for 6 months without reboot.

Apache? Runs over half the world's web servers. Also free. Goes to show that the "for-profit" model may not be working so well in the software world.

And while everyone is talking about protecting the rights of the content-distributors, you might remember that one of the greatest writers of the last century- Philip K. Dick- made only $15K during his BEST year! Do you think his publishers profits only amounted to 15K that year? I don't think the profits usually end up in the artists' wallets.....

And if you read Stephenson's In The Beginning Was The Command Line (http://www.cryptonomicon.com/beginning.html), he makes a convincing argument that MS does not produce anything tangible either. (XBox excluded)

Goes to show that the "for-profit" model may not be working so well in the software world.

Well, it certainly shows that the size of the corporation does not necessarily correspond to the value of their product. However, Micro$oft's products notwithstanding, the for-profit model does work in the software world overall.

Don't forget, many of the open-source developers make their living from companies that do pay them, and make a profit from their work. Many of those people, if not so employed, would not be developing open-source products... or their products would not benefit from the resources at their disposal, and therefore might be inferior to what they develop now.

By the way: Finished the book.

And if you read Stephenson's In The Beginning Was The Command Line (http://www.cryptonomicon.com/beginning.html), he makes a convincing argument that MS does not produce anything tangible either. (XBox excluded)

Can't convince me. I work as a developer writting apps that run on Windows. Our payroll product probably pays over 100,000 people every week. Tell those people getting those pay checks that the software which creates them isn't tangible.

If by tangible, you mean physical... well sure.

BOb

Can't convince me. I work as a developer writting apps that run on Windows. Our payroll product probably pays over 100,000 people every week. Tell those people getting those pay checks that the software which creates them isn't tangible.

If by tangible, you mean physical... well sure.

BOb

Wouldn't even think of telling those 100.000 people what they create is not tangible! The logistics would be a nightmare! :D

But Neal Stephenson's article is available as a text file at the link I posted . And agree or not, it is an interesting discussion of computer OS's.

Because developing something for the betterment of humanity is the right thing to do?

That theory has been tried. It was called the Soviet Union. It was one of the most abysmal and tragic failures in the history of the world.

What has been shown to work is Capitalism where people work to better their own lives and those of their family by creating and producing what other people want.

The kind of Altruism you put forward when carried to its logical extreme is self-annihilation. Who is going to work to feed you, clothe you, build a house for you to live in?

In fact how dare you expect food when someone else needs it more than you do?

Clothes? Someone else needs them more.

A house to keep the rain off? Someone else needs it more than you do.

In fact when it comes down to it, everything you consume is something that someone, somewhere else in the world needs more than you do. Your very life is taking away from someone else what THEY need.

If you want to devote your life to the "betterment of humanity" then how dare you consume that which others need? By what right do you claim food and clothes and housing when others in the world are in need?


As I said, that philosophy... living for the "betterment of others" is specious at best and blatantly criminal at worst.


I personally AM a member of Humanity and feel that my needs and wants are as valid and meaningful as anyone else's and no one has the right to tell me that my desires, wants and needs are any less important than anyone else's.

But I also don't feel I have a "right" to anyone else's work, effort of property simply because I "need" them. If I want something, if I want to survive, live and prosper, it is up to me to produce goods or services of enough value to someone else to swap for the things I want and need.

The moment I decide that I have a "right" to what someone else creates because I "need" it, I become nothing more than any other brute with a stick throughout history who believe Might Make Right.

The moment YOU decide that person A has a "right" to the goods or services of person B because of "need" and you're willing to seize them for the "betterment of humanity" then you too become nothing more than another brute using force to get his/her own way.

Civilization was intended to end brute force animalism. I'd hate to see it brought back.

Because developing something for the betterment of humanity is the right thing to do?


Ok, so let's say I'm an organic chemist and I want to develop a drug to cure one of the many type of cancer (hundreds).

I investigate for a few months and theorize that this molecule is the one I need for that particular cancer.

First thing I need is a lab. So I transform my basement into a viable laboratory. How much do you think that cost? Go to your local University chemistry department and ask around... And even they don't have all it take to create cancer drugs.

Once that hurdle is passed. I start working on the molecule.

Eureka, after months of hard labor and countless dead end, I have microgramme of what I wanted .

Now I have to do some test on rats. Reality is that it won't work and I will have to create hundreds of different molecules to get one that will be active on the cancer.

Then again, let's say that I was lucky and found a molecule that works. I'm now at least 10 years older and I can cure a rat...

Now I need to move up to pigs and monkeys. Then... testing on human. How much money do you think it cost to do clinical testing?

Assuming that I have unlimited money and that I'm willing to invest it all into the endeavor. My chances are still really slim that the molecule will work on human.

Once again, I'm at least 5 years older. My molecule works and I have built a list of side effects.

Now I have to fill in the proper paper work to patent my molecule and get government approval to distribute it, even at 1$ a pill. Then I need to go to India or China and get a factory to mass produce the pills.

Reality is even worst than what I depicted. My wife is an organic chemist. She actualy worked at Bio-Chem Pharma, the company who made the 3TC (the HIV drugs). They were lucky, the drugs worked.

She now work in another bio-tech. 10 years into R&D, 30 chemists on pay roll, 20 bologists, etc and they only have 1 molecule in clinical testing. Private investor poured in hundreds of millions into the company and have yet nothing to show for.

I'm a programmer / sys-admin. My job is easy, I work with computer and my results are immediate. The worst that can happen is that I cause some downtime or that I brick a device. I believe in open-source and give as much as I can. But I respect the pharmaceutical industry and know that what they do is out of reach of the regular hobbyist.

Tell the millions of people in Africa that have Aids that a looooong time will be max 20 years. For them it might as well be 200 years, because they will be just as dead then.
Drug or no drug, many will be just as dead from war & gerillas. Then those who survives will have to contend with famines and religions. In the mean while, their goverment extract millions in black gold and diamant from their soil.

Keep in mind, the drugs don't cure the disease, it simply slows down the symptoms. You are still contagious and need to take the necessary precaution.

Education is key to solving the AIDS issue, not drugs. They need to be aware of the disease and change their sexual habits.

Well, I think we've gone far enough :offtopic:...

Well, as I said, I've finished the book, and just thought I'd make a few comments about it (consider this my personal review):

To get right to the meat of it, the title throws you off... because this book is not really about the Pirate's dilemma, it's about Rebellion Against Authority. The book examines various recent movements, primarily driven by young people, that observed the status quo, decided unilaterally that they did not like it, and set out to enact change. The movements Mason discusses largely did not enact change from the inside--that is, through gradual change as a part of the system--rather, these groups espoused violent change, preferring to blow the barriers up rather than circumvent them.

What Mason's book does not provide is how these recent examples of rebellion are really any different than those rebellions of decades or even centuries back, or why they are particularly significant now. In every case, Mason illustrates how that movement, however radical or ground-breaking it was at its start, inevitably became folded back into Capitalism As We Know It, lost its status as Revolutionary, and ended up being merely Evolutionary... at best, a medium-sized asteroid that diverted evolution into a new direction, but one that was still within its original design and processes.

Reading between the lines, we find the implied question to the title, the real Pirate's Dilemma: What does the Pirate do when they are no longer Pirates? The implied answer: They become Capitalists, just like the rest of us... or they fade into oblivion. Pirates don't remain pirates... sooner or later, they conform, give up, or get discarded.

For me, I was disappointed that the book concentrated on elements like punk and hip-hop, but on the subject of literature, said virtually nothing. In fact, as the book centers on Capitalism, it all but ignores the independent artists of the very movements it lionizes... it reduces them to producers, addresses their art as little more than widgets (while celebrating the fact that their actual quality was of no importance), and dismisses petty concerns like artists getting fairly compensated for their Pirated works in a single sentence:

"Artists not getting paid for their work is a problem."

Overall, I got little out of this book, other than: That the Youth Movement At-Large does what it does largely because it is too automatically dismissive of its elders to try to learn and work within existing systems; the suggestion that an artist's work, at root, has no real value; and that Capitalism Endures, no matter what nonsense you throw at it.

Don't forget, many of the open-source developers make their living from companies that do pay them, and make a profit from their work. Many of those people, if not so employed, would not be developing open-source products... or their products would not benefit from the resources at their disposal, and therefore might be inferior to what they develop now.

By the way: Finished the book.

Open Source and "free" software is not about NOT making profit. You can, for example, sell any of the GNU software products, or even BSD, for any amount you want. People probably won't pay for it though<G>. Open source software is all about the consultants and programmers making money; this can happen without an "industrialist" like Bill Gates making life difficult for everyone by keeping source of the software hidden.

Open communications makes things better for everyone, and results in a better product....