Pirate Bay Goes Legit.

CNN reports today that the Swedish torrent website, "the Pirate Bay" is being sold to Global Gaming factory for millions. I'm pretty sure that I've no clue what Global Gaming Factory is going to do with this website/torrent filesharing system, but it sounds like "the Pirate Bay" will soon be out of the business of hosting seed files that point to networked systems that host copyrighted files.

What got me was the comments on the blog for this article. Most of them were from nerd or nerd wannabees who feel that their "right" to access copyrighted material at no cost to them and no compensation to the original authors of the programs is being violated. I'm amazed that supposedly educated people could even believe such an assertion, much less actually voice it.

Here's an example. Jake commented that "The cost of software these days rival car payments and rent payments. I don't blame them for downloading illegal software." First, Jake, they are not downloading illegal software. They *are* downloading software illegally. Huge difference. He later states "If prices were reasonable I’d probably buy every piece of software I used or had to evaluate and recommend to people. The simple fact is they are not."

Jake, that's a little like saying that if Lamborghini would only sell their Mucielago supercar for only ten thousand bucks you'd buy one.

Why is it that if you apply this same argument to every other industry, what you get is front row seat at your own trial, but somehow when it's digital software that's being stolen the thieves get a pass?

Without regard to whether the software is developed and sold by a large corporation like Microsoft, Symantec or Oracle or it's shareware being offered on cNET, the software that was developed at a cost in terms of both time and money and the developer deserves to be compensated for it. This is the essence of copyright laws. Without them, there's nothing to prevent people from reverse-engineering or stealing ideas developed at a high cost or effort, with the innovator receiving no benefit from their work.

The consumer does not have a right to steal something that they did not legally purchase simply because they do not desire or cannot pay the MSRP for it. That's stealing. Pure and simple. The marketplace will determine whether a company's product is any good. If it is... people will continue to purchase the product. If it isn't... then the company will fail. Period.

I wonder how Jake would feel if he spent several years and thousands (tens or hundreds of them) of dollars developing some really cool software, only to have it downloading tens of thousands of times from a site like "the Pirate Bay" without any compensation whatsoever.

In summarization, if people like Jake have his way then all software would be free of charge. Which will result in a stagnation in the computer programming industry because I know very few programmers that are willing to write code for free. Those that do, frankly, aren't very good programmers.

Danny Record, Rest in Peace.

Danny Record, a young man whom I became acquainted with during my association with R.W. Moore Chapter of DeMolay in Midvale, Utah, succumbed to a long battle with cancer and complications at 6:10 PM this evening, 10 minutes after the decision was reached to discontinue artificial life support.

Danny will be fondly remembered by all the Van Steeters. He was a past Master Councilor of R.W. Moore and recently was awarded the honor of Chevalier in DeMolay.

We are confident and grateful that he is no longer struggling and in pain. Those of us in the Masonic fraternity are taught that "we shall meet again in that abiding place, not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." I am quite sure that when I am called to my reward that I shall once again see Danny.

To the entire Record family, but especially to Ginger and Allan: We are saddened by your unspeakable loss and hope that you will find solace in the promise of everlasting life for the righteous.

Rest in Peace, young man.

HR 2454 - Taxing American Business to Oblivion

HR 2454 (ACES - American Clean Energy and Security Act) is purported to potentially save every American household, on average, $750 by year 2020 and $3,900 by year 2030. This declaration came from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE).

An important claim is that the energy efficiency provisions in the bill will reduce the transitional costs of capping carbon pollution, with the saving from reduced energy usage to be reinvested locally. This reinvestment purports to generate both economic activity and jobs. These claims were made by Steven Nadel, the Executive Director of ACEEE.

"Cap and Trade" is an important provision in this legislation, and is similar to the Clean Air Act provisions of 1990.

The idea behind Cap and Trade is that every business will be limited to the amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted into the environment, and which will be regulated by "emissions permits" for every ton of CO2 released into the atmosphere. The "cap" is the enforceable maximum limit that the company can emit. The "trade" is that some companies will be able to comply or transition with less expense than others. For those companies that emit less than their "cap", they can "trade" that deficit with other companies (probably for a fee). This theoretically results in an overall reduction in "greenhouse gas" emissions while reducing the risk for some companies that cannot quickly transition without incurring huge penalties levied by the Federal Government.

Over a LONG period of time, the theoretical goal is to reduce U.S. generated "greenhouse gas" emissions by 80 percent by 2050 (42 years from today). Here's the kicker though. It is estimated by organizations friendly to this legislation (like The Center for American Progress) that the taxes (or fines) have the potential to generate $50 billion to $300 billion annually! This is above and beyond all of the new taxes that are being contemplated at both the federal and state level to cope with the current tax revenue shortages being experienced by ever level of government. This is also not to mention an aggressive new implementation for an nationalized health-care option or system that will cost $1.1 trillion over ten years.

The problems are manifold. Cap and Trade has been used in Europe for years and what happened was that relatively "green" West European manufacturers happily sold carbon "credits" to their really dirty East European counterparts who then happily went on polluting to their heart's content. Net result, it wasn't until the recession kicked everybody in the teeth in 2007 that carbon emissions in Europe finally started to drop. But the reason was because fewer people were purchasing products manufactured in Europe, not because their industries were any more "green".

I am not against green technologies. I am very much for them. But make no mistake, the vast majority of so-called "green" energy production schemes (fuel-cell, wind power, geo-thermal, solar, etc) are still immature or implemented on such a small scale as to barely make a dent in the overall power demands of the American consumer. Consider this information: According to the U.S. Department of Energy the breakdown of energy production was: Petroleum (39%), Natural Gas (23%), Coal (22%), Nuclear Electric Power (8%) and "Renewable" (7%). If we break down the "Renewable" category, we find that Solar represents 1%, Hydroelectric 36%, Geothermal 5%, Biomass 53% and Wind 5%.

Think about that for just a minute... Solar energy production in the U.S. in 2007 generated .07% of our total energy production. Wind produced .35%, or 1/3 of one percent of our total energy needs.

So, here's the grind... Even though I agree with Pres. Obama that there is MUCH potential in the creation of green energy sector jobs I do not see how green technology can possibly replace traditional, well-developed and mature energy sources such as petroleum, coal and natural gas. And during that LONG period of time, the American manufacturer is going to be heavily penalized for failing to cap their CO2 emissions. And since only Europe really makes any effort to enforce CO2 emissions, you can be sure that we will continue to lose jobs to Asian manufacturers.

I personally think this whole thing is just a g-d tax scheme anyway.

What a Lousy Day...

On one day, two important icons of the 1970's and 1980's passed thru the veil of mortality. Farrah Fawcett, actress and arguably the most prolific pin-up girl ever passed away this morning, succumbing to a long fight with cancer. Her smile and distinctive fluffy hairdo was copied by millions of teenage girls and launched cosmetic and hair-care products bearing her name. While Farrah's passing was not unexpected, the sudden passing of the proclaimed "King of Pop" Michael Jackson comes as a complete shock. While the world has witnessed his slow decline of health, his bizarre changes in his appearance and his habit of sleeping in hyperbaric chambers, it simply was not expected that Michael Jackson would not live to see his 51st year.

This is sudden and pointed reminder to all of us who were born in the 1960's and 1970's that we are not meant to live in this existence forever.

I would never agree that these two persons were examples to be looked up to, especially in terms of moral behavior. However, as they served as nearly omnipresent images and icons in my youth, they truly will be missed not only by myself but by BILLIONS.

Rest in peace to both of these talented performers.