For example, your itunes collection is specific to you. If you die, it's deleted and is not transfered to your heirs. Similarly, Amazon is removing any books you purchased from your kindles if the seller sold them illegally. Also, if you violate any of their terms of service, they often delete the entire collection as well.
IMO there should be a law requiring digital licenses of any content to be fungible similar to physical copies. You should be allowed to transfer them to another service, even if the service stops existing, or they believe you breached some contract.
This would make licenses even more fungible than bank money is today: right now if a bank goes bankrupt, you might not see any money in your accounts, even though it's your money and you are no investor or anything. It's because every bank is "minting" it's own currency. There are models which are different where you have a central bank handing out digital money to the banks.
If I bought a eBook or any kind of media without an expiration date, I want to be in full control. I will buy first from DRM-free stores like Bandcamp or GOG.
Of course, if you have a perfectly fungible system, you could have websites where you are being lended a medium for a short time (e.g. one day) for really low amounts of money and of course this would be bad for content creators as it would dramatically lower the sales. However, that can be countered by other means e.g. minimum restriction on lending duration (e.g. one day) and fees that content creators get on ownership transfer and each lending interaction (e.g. 5% for the first 5 years after movie release, afterwards 1%).
Not true. Banks aren't minting their own money, and your money is insured. https://www.fdic.gov/
Not only does it increase the money supply, but the extra money created belongs to the bank. It's pretty much equivalent to being able to print money (with the caveat that there are limit's on how much hey can "print").
We could have a system where that money was simply given to people, not given to banks who then loan it out to people. And IMO that would have a very positive effect om our economy.
Edit: to illustrate this, try this thought experiment. Borrow $10 from a friend. Lend $5 of that to another friend. Congratulations, you've just increased the money supply by $5. That's the exact same method used by banks, but you'd not claim that you're now $5 richer or that you've effectively printed $5.
The bank does not hand around five dollar bills. The bank simply changes a number, and in doing so changes the contents of an account, increasing it by five dollars. Five dollars that can now be spent.
I would argue that this five dollars has effectively been printed. It was magiced out of thin air. How is it not five dollars? I can spend it.
I believe your thought experiment should be worded thus:
Have a friend write "ten dollars" on a piece of paper (bank account), and give it to you. Everyone will accept this as ten dollars. Write "five dollars" on another piece of paper (bank account), and give it to another friend. Everyone will accept this as five dollars. All the other pieces of paper (bank accounts) that existed beforehand still exist. You now also have two new pieces of paper, which will be accepted as fifteen dollars. Fifteen dollars, magiced out of nowhere. This is how the banks do it; they just write on the bank account how much money is in it.
Your example does not increase yhe money supply.
The ratio is closer to 11%.
Friend 1: 50$
Friend 2: 50$
I borrow 10$ from Friend 1:
Friend 1: 40$
Friend 2: 50$
Friend 2 borrow 5$ from me:
Me: 55$ ( I owe 10$)
Friend 1: 40$
Friend 2: 55$
I didn't increased the money supply.
> It's only created in the sense that the person they've lent it to can spend it while the depositor still has it in their account.
That's the thing, the depositor can still use that money. Friend 1 can't spend 50$ right now, only 40$, while the depositor in a bank, can still spend 50$.
The workings in your example if I am a bank:
Me: $50, customer 1: $50, customer 2: $50. Total $150.
Customer 1 deposits $5 with me and I lend it to customer 2.
Me: $50 (my reserves are unchanged), customer 1: $50 (because for the purposes of money supply, the deposit still counts as their money). Customer 2: $55. Total $155.
The counter intuitive bit is the fact that money supply treats deposits as money.
I disagree. They are not simply lending out money that other people deposited. They created new money, out of nowhere. There is a limit on how much of this they can do, but they are not simply lending out money that other people deposited. The bank of England is pretty clear that this money is magiced up out of nowhere; that it is money that did not exist before.
"Therefore, if you borrow £100 from the bank, and it credits your account with the amount, ‘new money’ has been created. It didn’t exist until it was credited to your account."
Totally true (aka fractional reserve banking) and is one of the main reasons (a portion of) your deposits are insured.
EDIT: yeesh, downvotes galore for something I figured only made economical sense ..
Though if I were the company who just lost such a juicy contract I'd tell them to go pound sand when they asked for a database dump.
Why make it more miserable on purpose and forbid people to use a own mp3 player? (aside from exploiting money)
And why not allow a smartphone or laptop with internet access in general?
(and only make exceptions for cartell leaders etc. to not let them continue their buisness inside)
How can you hope to reintegrate people back to society, if you allmost totally disconnect them from normal people and give them only other disconnected criminals to interact with?
If they go back into the system after release, then they clearly deserve more punishment.
There is zero tolerance or compassion in such a system so these people are ripe for all kinds of abuse. Rape, for example, is just something to laugh about in that context.
Regardless of their actions or how people view them, they’re still human beings with rights the should be protected like anyone else’s.
If we actually want to break the cycle, we need to seriously reduce adverse childhood experiences.
Sure thing. Those cold hearted pushers who make people addicted to the killerdrug marijuhana for example, do not deserve the smallest pitty. Put them all in a dark hole where no sun shines, serves them right.
One big reason is because inmate access to communication with the outside world always results in numerous complaints of harassment, usually from inmates' (ex) significant others.
Internet access makes it too easy for inmates to conduct this remote abuse while hiding evidence that they did so.
Setup a web proxy that only allows outbound port 80 and 443, MITMs all port 443 traffic, only GET and HEAD (no PUT/POST/CONNECT), and only to a select list of pre-approved domains (e.g. wikipedia.org, news/educational/government websites, etc), and which records all traffic. Risk of harassment from such a setup seems pretty low, and the inmates might learn something useful.
If a prisoner is researching their own appeal, or communicating with a lawyer about such, wouldn't these restrictions hamper their access to a fair and competent representation?
If he is very good he might get a small black and white television with limited access.
Obviously there can be surveillance for dangerous people.
Prisions should serve to reform inmates, not slowly antagonize them every day.
I guess that the bigger is the inmate population the easier is to make more money.
> But in 2018, the FDOC switched to a new company called JPay, which didn’t honor the earlier purchases. The agency required inmates to trade in their music players for new multimedia tablets, or to pay $25 and have the players shipped to someone outside prison.
That is a perfect business. You have literally captivated customers.
I think that USA do not see inmates as human beings. That is the only way to explain what happens there. But, they are human and abusing them is as much as a crime as abusing anyone else.
I think it’s important to frame any discussion of criminal justice reform in the US in the fact that our modern legal system is built on laws and loopholes, beginning with the 13th amendment, that exist solely to criminalize and reenslave huge portions of the population.
I highly recommend the documentary “13th” on Netflix for more info.
Most people in the US don't. Which, combined with its history of racism, goes a long way towards explaining the school-to-prison pipeline.
US is one of the least racist - up to and including freeing slaves.
How many countries had millions of slaves (15% of the population) to free?
Also interesting that you say "up to and including freeing slaves", which excluded the racially founded prison industrial complex that was created to replac
e slavery after the 13th Amendment.
Not saying US is the worst, am saying not to ignore USA's ugly history and present, especially USA claims to be the world leader in freedom and human rights.
 Even the North didn't support abolishing slavery until after the Civil war started, at which point the argument was largely 'we just fought and won a war over this, lets at least get something out of it".
also, that link is regarding a survey asking people if they think they are racist, it’s hardly objective
I think the US doesn't see most of its citizens as human beings, let alone its inmates. That is indeed the root of this and many problems.
That's something we've got to fix. But just because that happens, it doesn't mean we don't have to be hard on "not elite" criminals.
>If punishment was applied uniformly, maybe you'd have more people respecting the law?
I don't believe so. You think crack dealers, murderers or rapists do their thing because Mr. Richguy didn't go to prison for stealing a few millions? I don't see how those two things are related at all.
Maybe the case of some anarchist terrorists who wanted to sow discord through crime, but that's a tiny minority.
If you wrote an algorithm, then some tests, and your tests showed it failed 76% of the time, do you really think you'd look at that and think: "great, it's working, so let's do more of that?" If so, I doubt you'd be long for the world of paid employment. Yet that's exactly what you're advocating here. Assuming, that is, your goal is to reduce crime.
Let's re-frame the conversation. If 76% of high school students failed to graduate, would you point at that and say the kids are scum, failures, it's their fault they couldn't hack it? Clearly the system works. Here's a pick-axe and a hard hat, good luck with your future in the coal mines. Or would you say hmm, clearly there's room for improvement in the way we teach people or the things we teach? Let's figure out how to fix this.
Now if you just want an institutionalized way to abuse people, it definitely fits the bill.
The reality is that other systems in the world have much, much lower recidivism rates (20% in Norway, where they actually treat people humanely  the trope goes). The incarceration rates in the US are off the charts  and the recidivism rates are too. So either the people born in the US are overwhelmingly more likely to "just be scum who belong in prison for some reason" or there's more at play here, institutionally speaking. And furthermore, what happened in 1980  that made huge portions of the population (3X more) suddenly "become scum"?
You absolutely can change peoples behavior. People don't want to be bad people. Some don't know how, and the evidence shows if you show them a better way, they grow and respond. Giving people room to live up to your expectations works, whether in your day job in management or in prisoner rehabilitation. The data bears that out. Yeah, definitely not everyone, but it's fair to say that we can do better.
On a joking note, I do wish you luck in your testing career ;)
There's a lot of people who literally believe this, and most of their reasoning boils down to "Norway is all white". Have you ever heard "America is different, X can't work here because America is so diverse"?
Regarding incarceration rates specifically, the next 3 leading jailers behind the US (Russia, the Ukraine and Poland) are unbelievably homogeneous. I believe Poland is almost 97% white . They're my people, so I think I can safely say, they consider a mild tan to represent diversity. There are homogenous countries that lock people up, and there are homogenous countries that don't. There are also diverse countries that lock people up, and diverse countries that don't.
I was trying to be very careful in not comparing Norway's incarceration rate (which is, itself, 1/10th of the US) but rather their substantially lower recidivism rate which I think one can more easily treat as an apples-to-apples comparison, meaning that there is room to improve on the process.
Does being hard mean scamming them? Because that's what we're talking about here, not about applying longer sentences or other harsh punishments.
In short, the US prison population is sufficiently skewed away from justice that holding incarceration against someone is disingenuous.
Law only works when the transgressors are few. When the law is at odds with society, society adopts to being at odds with the law. If one truly believes in the rule of law, then it behooves them to reject nonsensical applications of it that undermine its credibility.
Some of them have disrespect for some laws, which can be entirely reasonable and not make them lesser at all.
Some of them were desperate.
Very few fall into the bucket you described.
If you're a green card holder and leave the card at home, and run into a law enforcement officer, that's a $100 fine or 1 month in jail. Luckily I've got my photocopy here, ah wait, that's insufficient. Good point -- scum of the earth, I'll see myself to jail.
You can go to jail for possessing a lobster less than 3.25" long even if you found it washed up on shore, you absolute monster . Have you, yourself, ever held a short lobster? Remember! Not knowing isn't an excuse either!
Nobody even knows how many federal laws there are . We've tried to count them and failed a number of times. Stalin's head of secret police once said "Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime" -- well, if the set of crimes in the US is un-countable, I bet you that works equally well here.
I've never met you, but I guarantee, you've accrued enough potential legal liability to spend the rest of your miserable life in prison, and yet you're out wandering around, calling others scum (in a different thread) and showing off that you've never been to prison. So what's difference? Luck I guess.
And being treated like a sub-human in a prison you got thrown into, for what you consider to be an unjust decision is bound to make you resent the law and increase your chances of ending up there again. How is he not seeing that?
You're still a criminal, but depending on how you picked the laws you're probably not subhuman.
> Not an excuse.
It's not a legal defense (usually), but it's a defense against being antithetical to society itself.
What is the context for this response?
>Not an excuse.
Not an excuse for what? Treating criminals like human beings?
There's another explanation:
Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
I'm not a religious person, but sometimes I truly wish hell exists so that these prison profiteers, who have sold their soul to the devil, at least get what they deserve in the afterlife.
Or did they just sign because . . .
While I agree, I think this is more corporations do not give af about their customers. How many music services have done this? I don't have a count, but I've heard of a few.
(They could also pay to ship a CD containing the music)
It costs inmates $1/minute just to make a domestic phone call.
Even the digital items purchased are almost 2x retail price.
May not seem like much to you, but also mind that prison wages are measured in cents and subject to taxation.
The article's point is that they lost $11 million in songs. My point was that it appears they could have retained that music for probably a small fee, with that CD being sent to someone outside of prison, or maybe sent to them after they left prison (the details aren't in the article, unfortunately).
I'm annoyed that the article glossed over this.