In Holland that is actually the norm.Originally Posted by Aimless
OG. do I understand this model correctly if I think that the library acts sort of as a pool of funds that can be used for people to obtain e-books? How do you keep that system fair in the distribution of e-books relative to the contributions?
Congratulations America
I actually didn't see a link.
Let me get this straight. Freegal already works for music. Allowing patrons to checkout DRM free music, even through we had a physical music collection for years before hand. Our all access databases allow unrestricted use of research materials, such as learning new languages (physical sets costing $479 a pop), and auto repair (~$20 per physical copy).
Yet you don't believe that this model will transition over to the rest of our physical collection, because...?
How often do you think library patrons purchase a title after checking it out? What do you think gets more reuse, music or books?
Sounds like you're worried about the system being abused by the same people who already abuse the industry via other less tracked and shadowy means. How much research has to be done for you to be satisfied that people don't mind paying for or borrowing materials when they don't feel like they're the ones getting the short end of the stick when compared to pirates?
We have a budget thats broken into quarters. The selectors (usually librarians) are given a catalog of materials to pick from, and we order from that catalog. We base our orders off of all sorts of things, suggestions, trends, anything from local events to hot authors, to movie tie-ins. Everything we have available to checkout has already been researched, approved, ordered and paid for by the library system.
Currently the system works the same for physical and electronic materials. We even have to pay for ebooks to be added to overdrive that are offered for free via stores like Amazon.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 05-31-2011 at 03:50 AM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
When things are buried in links, people sometimes miss it.
For both music and books, zero. Which is exactly the problem. Why would anyone purchase anything currently under copyright when their local library will give them a free, DRM-less digital copy?
"Freegal" sounds like it "works" only in the strictest sense of the word, IE it's a system that is functioning. Sure, the publisher is still getting some revenue. But, depending on the pricing structure, it's hard to see how the actual revenues are comparable.
if you're going to argue a conversation into circles, try paying the fuck attention. especially when requesting information thats replied to you not once, but twice.
Great, so you're already considering a checkout as a lost sale. Now why exactly does the checkout and reading experience have to be purposely made difficult again? If patrons don't purchase the materials that they checkout, why are you restricting how and when those materials can be used? When instead a server-side restriction on total volume would achieve the same goal of protecting industry sales?
and yet pirates spend more on their industry than their law abiding citizens.How often do you think library patrons purchase a title after checking it out?
My county's current subscription level to freegal has run out each week before the reset for 4 months in a row now. Some of the wishlist items are even items we have available and checked-in in physical form. Now, besides the obvious fact that people are using freegal at all when it would be just as easy (or easier) to use something like www.beemp3.com, do you really believe that all the people with wishlisted items went out and purchased the music they now have to wait for?
Or we could rewrite it:
Imagine that, the digital age shaking up yet another physical media industry. I've already talked about how the pricing structure has changed with regards to ebooks. Does freegal guarantee a full $17.99 payment for each album downloaded? Fuck no, and it shouldn't and likely never will. Libraries have always been attacked as freeloading off of authors and content creators, that agrument doesn't hold anymore water now than it did before ebooks.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 05-31-2011 at 01:31 PM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
The thing is I have trouble believing that you won't then turn around and complain about server-side limitations being put on the number of downloads per subscription/unit of time. The more you go around and around this, the more it really does seem like this fits under your "free stuff" doctrine.
I'm not seeing how limiting a library ebook checkout to, say, three weeks is a dramatic imposition on the user experience. At least not any more than the current library experience that limits how long someone can possess a book. What you're proposing is a lot more of a radical re-definition of what a library is. Instead of a place where someone can "rent" a book for free, you're proposing that a library become a place where where someone can get in line to get a permanent free book of their choosing.
I don't think it would necessarily kill publishing any more than ebook piracy, but you've got to at least admit that it's a major conceptual shift.
Never mind Ominous Gamer, if I promise that I won't complain about subscriptions, then will you be happy?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Christ on a stick Dread. You not only managed to not answer a single question, you managed to completely ignore everything in the last post and only regurgitated the same bullshit you already posted. Even your hardon for speaking in paragraphs can't hide that.
Don't be such a reality hating douche bag Dread. Are you honestly claiming that I'm using DRM as a stepping stone to later attack paid subscriptions and access?Even though I've spent this entire thread talking up about the balance the subscription model has created for the other collections the library already uses?
There is no free stuff doctrine. Its a dickheaded troll line you fall back on when you have no real argument.
Yeah, I spent one post agreeing with Aimless about how some industries expect unrealistic profits, no matter how outdated they become; but thats an argument that sits for everything.
I'm taking you don't understand how DRM works then. With approved hardware lists, authorizations, authentications, proprietary software. All of that restricts the ease of access that the library is about. Its not as simple as saying "you have 3 weeks". You need an entire system to back up that claim, and thats something that physical print materials have not had to deal with. Have you always returned your borrowed materials on time? Did you never pay a late fee? Was the material you checked out rendered inoperable because of your tardiness?I'm not seeing how limiting a library ebook checkout to, say, three weeks is a dramatic imposition on the user experience. At least not any more than the current library experience that limits how long someone can possess a book.
I don't think its radical in any sense. Especially since its a process we've been promoting with databases and research materials for damn near a decade. The library is reacting to how the consumer already treats their products. Sure, it might be hard for some people to grasp the concept currently on a large scale, especially since consumers who pay straight from their pocket are still discovering what rights they do and do not have.What you're proposing is a lot more of a radical re-definition of what a library is. Instead of a place where someone can "rent" a book for free, you're proposing that a library become a place where where someone can get in line to get a permanent free book of their choosing.
I don't think it would necessarily kill publishing any more than ebook piracy, but you've got to at least admit that it's a major conceptual shift.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I'm pretty sure academic journals love library subscriptions
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
OG, I've been trying to get you to explain what the benefits are of unlimited-use ebook lending for several posts now. Academic journals and databases are very plainly not what I've been concerned about in this discussion. I've been very specifically focused on consumer-oriented books.
For many consumer books, our existing library model is a tradeoff. You can read a book for free, but you have a time limit on how long you can keep the book. The model you believe will work allows people to wait in line to get a book for free, except they get to keep it forever with no restrictions. That is a big difference, and it does chance the economics of how libraries obtain books.
For example, last week I bought a digital copy of Yates' Revolutionary Road for maybe $8.99. A portion of that undoubtedly goes to Yates' estate as royalties. The problem with the model you're discussing is that older-but-still-in-copyright works would be accessible for free without any substantial revenues to the copyright holders, as the library subscription fees from the publishers would be filtered towards copyright holders (probably through an obscure formula).
The subscription model for libraries makes sense for some content, but not all of it. There is a wide swath of content for which this really is a radical re-definition of a library. This is because the tradeoff of using a library vs. purchasing a book changes to purchasing a book vs. piggybacking on a library's subscription agreement to get a free copy of a book. I fail to see how this doesn't reduce revenues for some content creators (especially obscure/older ones) who may otherwise see more revenues by selling ebooks directly to their audience.
Trying to harangue me as some kind of luddite doesn't change that; I'm a big fan of eBooks.
Not paying attention again. Lets see if you can count the number of times I've used the words or phrases: ease of access, use, or accessibility to explain the subscription model. Hell, I even spent the last post explaining why the DRM system fails at that idea.
and of course you're going to ignore every other collection the library has. Admitting a trend, much less a trend for a business model that works, well damn, you wouldn't have much to argue after that. I knew you would eventually try to blow off the databases, which is why I linked to our subscription databases that are based off of very popular consumer-oriented books, languages and car repair. Who hasn't heard of Rosetta or Chiltons?
You seemed confused on why libraries have return dates on physical materials. Its not a trade off for the protection of the publishers. Its protection of the library collection from disappearing. A threat that does not exist in the digital world. Have you ever taken a hard look at how long you're able to actually keep a book out from a library? You can check out a book for 12 weeks from my system without having to talk to anyone or step back into library building (and thats not including the instant return/checkout). Now you've already admitted that people don't purchase materials after checking them out, so how many times do you think that item is going to get read in 12 weeks? How many times do you honestly believe that item is going to be searched for to be reread after 12 weeks? There is no threat from unlimited checkout periods. For the patrons who would use it the most, it would be physically and mentally impossible to actually use such a collection of reading materials. You're stuck on the distraction that DRM free means everyone is going to end up with their own private Alexandria of unlimited free knowledge that they will always be referencing. That is a stupid distraction to be stuck on.For many consumer books, our existing library model is a tradeoff. You can read a book for free, but you have a time limit on how long you can keep the book. The model you believe will work allows people to wait in line to get a book for free, except they get to keep it forever with no restrictions. That is a big difference, and it does chance the economics of how libraries obtain books.
You're using a hypothetical business transaction to attack a hypothetical business transaction. Cause that makes a fuckton of sense.For example, last week I bought a digital copy of Yates' Revolutionary Road for maybe $8.99. A portion of that undoubtedly goes to Yates' estate as royalties. The problem with the model you're discussing is that older-but-still-in-copyright works would be accessible for free without any substantial revenues to the copyright holders, as the library subscription fees from the publishers would be filtered towards copyright holders (probably through an obscure formula).
Let me play that game now. Library purchases X number of download slots for X number of dollars. Those X number of dollars are then funneled towards the authors/copyright holders/who ever the fuck deserves compensation of the books that are downloaded. That doesn't even require the publishers to restructure themselves internally. To hard to understand, maybe not extreme enough to bitch about? We could even go the netflix route.
There is no redefining anything (again, already covered). If anything the subscription models makes the library's task more transparent.The subscription model for libraries makes sense for some content, but not all of it. There is a wide swath of content for which this really is a radical re-definition of a library. This is because the tradeoff of using a library vs. purchasing a book changes to purchasing a book vs. piggybacking on a library's subscription agreement to get a free copy of a book. I fail to see how this doesn't reduce revenues for some content creators (especially obscure/older ones) who may otherwise see more revenues by selling ebooks directly to their audience.
Trying to harangue me as some kind of luddite doesn't change that; I'm a big fan of eBooks.
You're only rewording the hangup you have about keeping "free" books. Besides the fact that the library does in fact pay for access for these materials (that for some reason you want to believe doesn't reach the appropriate people [not a library problem]), the entire point of the library is to provide the materials that people wouldn't have purchased or can't afford. If a patron doesn't make a purchase after reading a checkout (which you already stated), whats the difference for how long that checkout goes for?
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 06-01-2011 at 03:22 AM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I said who would purchase a book if they could get it for free from their library.
But I have to really chuckle at your assertion that libraries ask for books to be returned just because they don't want their physical collection to disappear. What, your library system doesn't have a process to recall books upon request? The finite quantity of books in a library matters. It can't be just be erased with the expectation the publishers should consent to this brave new world.
You've explained a million times how the subscription model will work for downloads, and I keep saying that the subscription model is based on the idea of diluting the individual value of books into a pool or a formula managed by a publisher. That's the exact opposite of what ebooks should be doing. That is, unless publishers track individual downloads from every single library and apportion money to copyright holders. Do they actually do that? Because that changes the dynamic.
Furthermore, what is the per-book rate compared to what publishers are getting on average through private sales?
And even if they are comparable, doesn't this basically turn libraries into non-profit/government subsidized book purchasers for large blocks of content?
You are really bad at discussing this, not to mention explaining it. Which is really too bad. Think about the business perspective for a moment, and imagine the balance sheet of all of this beyond whether the publisher is just getting paid. It's not about publishers and authors getting paid something, it's about the relative amount they are getting paid.
I would...I said who would purchase a book if they could get it for free from their library.
. . .
I said who would purchase a book if they could get it for free from their library.How often do you think library patrons purchase a title after checking it out?
Problems paying attention to your own posts now?
You mean a holds system?But I have to really chuckle at your assertion that libraries ask for books to be returned just because they don't want their physical collection to disappear. What, your library system doesn't have a process to recall books upon request?
We sure do. Would kind of suck for a patron to enter into an empty library and not be able to place themselves in line for a book. This doesn't reduce the original checkout period for the current user however
Why exactly would that not work again?
No, it really doesn't. In fact there are programs out there that do what they can to ensure a library doesn't have to deal with a finite physical collection as is. Baker and Taylor leases books to libraries for anywhere from 3 months to a year and for an extremely small fraction of consumer list price. (Crying for the authors yet?) We get the books either weeks in advance to process or they come processed and ready to float out. When demand dies down :cough:Twilight:cough: we ship the books back so that we aren't stuck trying to store a shitload of books no one needs anymore.The finite quantity of books in a library matters. It can't be just be erased with the expectation the publishers should consent to this brave new world.
Whoa. You didn't think this is what already happens? You thought we have to go through 3rd party services like NetLibrary and Overdrive because its fun and rainbows?That is, unless publishers track individual downloads from every single library and apportion money to copyright holders. Do they actually do that? Because that changes the dynamic.
What the fuck Dread, how else do you think digital ebooks are currently tracked, counted, and DRM authorized?
How would anyone know what was worth writing or publishing, funding or advertising, purchasing or repurchasing if they weren't able to track it?
I don't see why there wouldn't be a distribution system for compensation with a freegal model.
This position you've taken. Its akin to claiming that when someone purchases an ebook via amazon or apple, none of that money makes it back to the appropriate people. Now, this might be a stretch, but I'm pretty sure, thats not whats happening.
I can't speak for what the publishers do with the funds the libraries currently pay them, but that sounds like a problem between the publisher and the content creator. Not a problem with the subscription model or the purchasing method of the library. You have to remember, the library is already in the business of buying or renting huge quantities of books, and as already covered, when someone borrowers, they don't buy.
for ebooks? Read the fucking thread.Furthermore, what is the per-book rate compared to what publishers are getting on average through private sales?
Which would be no different, or no harder to figure out than it was when you compared physical purchased and borrowed materials.It's not about publishers and authors getting paid something, it's about the relative amount they are getting paid.
As do I, and I even have the option to have the library purchase directly the books I want to read.I would...
Amazon and Barnes & Noble seem to be making a pretty decent living as well, despite the evil library.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 06-01-2011 at 11:34 AM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Will you please stop misquoting me? I specifically responded to the freegal + purchases issue by quoting them together. When someone can get a book for free, they won't buy a book. Why you think I'm secretly "admitting" to something else is beyond me.
***
OG, you haven't really answered a single question here about how this model attributes purchases or how much relative income the publisher/author side of the equation actually gets. You're assuming there is direct attribution much like with direct purchases of ebooks, but you clearly don't know. And I'm not sure you ever cared before anyone brought it up here. But your assumption is that just because the publishers and authors are getting paid something, they are making relatively as much as if library ebooks had DRM and direct-purchased ebooks didn't.
You're obsessively focused on the good user experience for library patrons. This is admirable in one sense, but it's naive because we all know there has to be a rational business underpinning behind these systems for everything to work. Otherwise, in the long term, the public service of libraries will be crippled to protect commercial interests. The publishers will demand higher rates, older copyright holders will sue for a bigger cut, etc.
And BTW my concern isn't just for the commercial interests of the publishers, but for the relevance of the libraries if part of their function just becomes a channel for nonprofit/government subsidies of book purchases. But you ranting and bloviating about "my position" is silly, because it's clear you don't understand my position any more than you understand the potential flaws in turning libraries into channels for getting free, DRM-less digital materials. My "position" is merely skepticism at one particular area of an emerging business model.
Last edited by Dreadnaught; 06-01-2011 at 11:59 AM.
I'm not misquoting you any worse than how you're abusing the sense of "free" to define what the library offers. Using how you have positioned yourself already, our freegal collection, our journals, the databases, its all what would qualify as free. Except its not, the library pays for these subscriptions and passes service to the patron base.
I'm trying to get you see the connection between lost sales and borrowing. People usually don't purchase something after being able to check it out. There is no secret to that. So the borrowing period isn't going to change that, doesn't matter if its 3 weeks or 3 years. People also don't generally reread the same materials over and over again. So having a subscription model for DRM free books isn't going to somehow destroy the consumer ebook or print market.
***
I'm not addressing financial figures because they aren't a concern at this point. Not to mention that each publisher would likely offer different compensation models to their authors. The model already exists with the netlibrary and audiobooks, our databases, and again freegal. Now, this may just be me, but if such models didn't work, they wouldn't have been around for the last decade, and I'm willing to bet authors wouldn't be using the publishers that supported these models. Libraries have already positioned themselves to where they pay a miniscule percentage of cover price for physical print materials, ebooks shouldn't and likely aren't any different over the life of the book. Even if some publishers make their ebook offerings self-destruct after a set amount of attention. (again, read the thread and you will find where I already addressed what we pay for ebooks relative to physical books).OG, you haven't really answered a single question here about how this model attributes purchases or how much relative income the publisher/author side of the equation actually gets. You're assuming there is direct attribution much like with direct purchases of ebooks, but you clearly don't know. And I'm not sure you ever cared before anyone brought it up here. But your assumption is that just because the publishers and authors are getting paid something, they are making relatively as much as if library ebooks had DRM and direct-purchased ebooks didn't.
Rational business underpinnings? You mean like the DRM free music almost everyone offers? Like freegal, or other popular services like Zune Pass (gasp! free music every month!) or the current version of Napster? Like DRM free games via GOG? Like the unnumbered subscription services the library already offers?You're obsessively focused on the good user experience for library patrons. This is admirable in one sense, but it's naive because we all know there has to be a rational business underpinning behind these systems for everything to work.
There is nothing irrational about a business model that sells download slots and allows the customers to use those slots accordingly. Thats the basis for every inbetween currency from Xbox Live Points to gift cards.
If this had basis in reality it would have also crippled the physical collection. But thats the crazy thing about competition and publishers. They have already taken care of this.Otherwise, in the long term, the public service of libraries will be crippled to protect commercial interests. The publishers will demand higher rates, older copyright holders will sue for a bigger cut, etc.
If anything, digital collections at this point have placed more power into the hands of the lenders. Publishers and distributors understand that libraries aren't competing against retail locations anymore now than they used to in the past.
Libraries are however competing against online piracy at a much more successful rate than any other transaction. If rates go to high, if the service becomes to complicated, people turn to piracy now, not the store. I mentioned that in the beginning, sites like beemp3, the exploding presence of ebooks on filesharing sites and the numerous programs that strip existing DRM. The copyright holders are finally learning that they can't go about business ignoring the behaviors and mindsets of their customers.
You think libraries have amassed such huge collections of DVDs while still paying full sticker price? Hell no. They pay the same (or comparable) extremely discounted rates as the likes of RedBox or Blockbuster, for the same type of DVD.
Again, I've already mentioned how the pricing of ebooks has changed compared to the pricing of physical books. Selling 10+ copies at 99 cents each instead of selling 1 copy for 9.99.
This goes back to not understanding how patrons already use their borrowing privileges for physical materials.the relevance of the libraries if part of their function just becomes a channel for nonprofit/government subsidies of book purchases.
-----------
You seem to be coming to the realization that its not the business model you have a problem with. Thats been tried tested and approved in the library and the private market. I think understanding what the library has become, and will continue to evolve into, is making you uncomfortable.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 06-01-2011 at 03:28 PM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/on...ordID=06022011
The National Academies Press Makes All PDF Books Free to Download;
More Than 4,000 Titles Now Available Free to All Readers
WASHINGTON -- As of today all PDF versions of books published by the National Academies Press will be downloadable to anyone free of charge. This includes a current catalog of more than 4,000 books plus future reports produced by the Press. The mission of the National Academies Press (NAP) -- publisher for the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council -- is to disseminate the institutions' content as widely as possible while maintaining financial sustainability. To that end, NAP began offering free content online in 1994. Before today’s announcement, all PDFs were free to download in developing countries, and 65 percent of them were available for free to any user.
"Our business model has evolved so that it is now financially viable to put this content out to the entire world for free," said Barbara Kline Pope, executive director for the National Academies Press. "This is a wonderful opportunity to make a positive impact by more effectively sharing our knowledge and analyses."
Based on the performance of NAP’s current free PDFs, projections suggest that this change will enhance dissemination of PDF reports from about 700,000 downloads per year to more than 3 million by 2013.
Printed books will continue to be available for purchase through the NAP website and traditional channels. The free PDFs are available exclusively from the NAP’s website, http://www.nap.edu/, and remain subject to copyright laws. PDF versions exist for the vast majority of NAP books. Exceptions include some books that were published before the advent of PDFs; books from the Joseph Henry Press imprint; and in cases where contractually prohibited, such as reference books in the Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals series.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Newsflash: Current Non-Profit Offering Materials for Free Announces Plan to Continue Offering Materials for Free.
Correction: increase the portion of their collection offered for free to 100% and to everyone, after seeing that they can remain self-sustaining even after giving all digital media away for free. Oh wait maybe your point was that they weren't making 50 gajillion percent in profits every year and every company in every industry has to make at least 50 gajillion.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
That wasn't my point at all.
Also, this is a non-profit posting academic papers that were already free. They don't have to pay anyone to create content. I believe it's also partly funded by the US government, but regardless this is a vastly different type of enterprise than writing novels.
I would hope you could recognize that there is a difference between disseminating academic papers and publishing commercial books where the authors have to get paid. Can you please un-flare your nostrils acknowledge that?
Examples of the pdf "academic papers" that are now offered openly to everyone, everywhere; which is new (Dread seems to be having problems comprehending this part).
As sold through Amazon:
New Worlds, New Horizons $40, 324 pages
The Rise of Games and High Performance Computing $33, 130 pages
Learning Science Through Computer Games $39, 174 pages
Strategy for the Exploration of Mars $33, 130 pages
Exploration of the Moon $31, 121 pages
Intellectual Property in the Information Age $45, 364 pages
Now their slightly more boring, but apparently most popular title:
Reducing Risks for Mental Disorders $180, 636 pages
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
They sold them basically at the cost of printing small numbers of large books. And the content they were getting was basically free. And they already had a lot of content for free, this is just an expansion. Probably because no one was buying a 636 page book and begged for PDFs.
I would hope you could recognize that there is a difference between disseminating academic papers and publishing commercial books where the authors have to get paid. Can you please un-flare your nostrils acknowledge that?
ding ding ding!
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I would hope you could recognize that there is a difference between disseminating academic papers and publishing commercial books where the authors have to get paid. Can you please un-flare your nostrils acknowledge that?
http://stallman.org/articles/ebooks.pdf
Both of these examples have already been discussed in this thread.Stallman claims that eBook retailers can still support authors and retain buyers' freedoms by distributing tax funds to authors based on their popularity, or by "designing players so users can send authors anonymous voluntary payments".
"EBooks need not attack our freedom, but they will if companies get to decide," Stallman concludes. "It's up to us to stop them."
-Richard Stallman
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Retailers distributing "tax funds" to authors? Is this more of Stallman's trying to redefine words so they fit his sensibilities?http://stallman.org/articles/ebooks.pdf
Both of these examples have already been discussed in this thread.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
OG and Dread and y'all can continue the public library or access to Information debate.
Mind if I expand this to public services such as Infrastructure or Utilities? Perhaps even *gasp* banking?
There's an ongoing hoopla between banks and borrowers. Dimon and other CEOs from "large systemically important" financial institutions are whining about Fin-Reg and a consumer protection agency. The same banks that were bailed out with tax payer money, putting Treasury and Federal Reserve into new untested territory, are now saying their profit margins will be hurt with capital requirements (plus some consumer-citizen-friendly rules/regulations).
I guess that means they won't be able to pay their CEOs multi-million dollar salaries, buy back their own shares, or promise investors more dividends? And they see that as crippling their commercial interests in order to protect our public services? Sort of the mirror-image of the OP, but still.....it's not their money! What kind of crazy monopoly do these guys have, using public money, anyway?
Edit:
Last edited by GGT; 06-08-2011 at 08:38 PM.
Yes I've been meaning to ask about healthcare. Isn't part of the reason why healthcare in the US is so ridiculously expensive and wasteful that, when you guys were getting started, you decided to shaft the great thing you were building in order to safeguard various private interests? Factual answer please.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
More like our teenaged years, during / after the Great Depression. Read up on Hoover vs FDR, and the New Deal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_new_deal
FDR was rarely photographed in his crutches or wheelchair, but he was a polio victim.
Some presidential historian could probably connect the dots better, but I think this is where some of his ideology arose that led to progressives including equity of healthcare in public policy.In August 1921, while the Roosevelts were vacationing at Campobello Island, New Brunswick, Canada, Roosevelt contracted an illness diagnosed then as polio which resulted in permanent paralysis from the waist down; this diagnosis was later questioned.[50] For the rest of his life, Roosevelt refused to accept that he was permanently paralyzed.[51] He tried a wide range of therapies, including hydrotherapy, and, in 1926, he purchased a resort at Warm Springs, Georgia, where he founded a hydrotherapy center for the treatment of polio patients which still operates as the Roosevelt Warm Springs Institute for Rehabilitation.[52] After he became President, he helped to found the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (now known as the March of Dimes).
At the time, Roosevelt was able to convince many people that he was getting better, which he believed was essential if he was to run for public office again. Fitting his hips and legs with iron braces, he laboriously taught himself to walk a short distance by swiveling his torso while supporting himself with a cane. In private, he used a wheelchair, but he was careful never to be seen in it in public. He usually appeared in public standing upright, supported on one side by an aide or one of his sons. FDR used a car with specially designed hand controls, which provided him further mobility.[53]
In the public mind, Roosevelt has been by far the most famous polio survivor. However, his age at onset (39 years) and the majority of symptoms of his illness are more consistent with a diagnosis of Guillain–Barré syndrome.[54] Since Roosevelt's cerebrospinal fluid was not examined, the cause may never be known for certain.
I can't tell what I'm more shocked at. The insanity of the idea that government-supported authors would be free from government influence, or that he supports government taxing Internet use to pay content creators.http://stallman.org/articles/ebooks.pdf
Both of these examples have already been discussed in this thread.
Admittedly I'm not too familiar with the guy, but based on my cursory knowledge it seems odd.
Well, it can't be more insane than government taxing removable media of various kinds to pay content creators. Or, rather, their pimps.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
