Eliminate intellectual property

[Perpetual Change]

It's funny, we're cranks for criticizing economics' obsession with modeling - until the models destroy the case for a policy like IP protection.  Anyway, you would have a point if the modeling weren't corroborated by empirical evidence. But it is, as the study explains, focusing specifically on open source systems.

What are you talking about? The research argues against the case for the current patent system, not IP in general, which is much less a draconian slash-and-burn solution than what the libertarians usually come up with¹.  And besides, if I were allowed to freely steal all of your things, I'd have a lot more room to be "innovative" too. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't be punishing you in the process. Isn't that what you aren't accepting here? Your whole idea seems to be that getting rid of IP is protection good for innovation. Fine. But then you take it a step further, pretending that doing so won't have any adverse effects on the people doing the actual intellectual work. That's where the whole libertarian solution dives into la la land.

Again, I'm a musician. I've been in bands and I write for a living. Please stop pretending that I'm disconnected from this debate.

Dude, doing covers of glam-rock with Boskers does not count 

¹And, frankly, that's not surprising. "Reform", rather than "removal", means even if problems with the patent system were handled, Lady Gaga might still be able to keep you from downloading her next album. I'd be surprised if people the pushing doing something about IP would ever go for that, since free-for-all downloads seem like the real motivation to begin with.

[William Wallace]

Hey WW, would you like it if I copied all our articles, crated my own blog, and got my own advertisers to pay for it? It would require nothing out of me, really, and I'd profit off of your writing, your thinking, and your work. Given the size of the internet, who would know? Perhaps some would eventually found out the original source, but many, many, many others would not - and that's something anyone who's spent any amount of time on the internet should know full well. Things are copied all the time, when it's illegal, and no one's the wiser. One reason people are able to trace it back to the original source is becuase of sourcing, copyrights, etc.

Writing for a reputable website, promoting with social media and developing an audience makes that virtually impossible on a large scale. But it does happen. I've found my stuff on obscure blogs and news aggregators without attribution. Still, most writers want to develop their own style and produce original content. Lifting other people's work will only get you so far.   

There's something I've noticed about libertarian theories; they often hinge upon some sort of government or some sort of theory they don't like to support it. It's like environmentalism, where libertarians insist the a strong personal definition of property rights would solve everything, but in order for that to solve anything, you have to have a fiat judicial system - i.e. government - in order for it to work. The same goes with IP, where every example given is possible due to at least some conception of IP; it's argued that people would favor the original artists, etc; but that favoring is only possible due to knowledge, which is only possible due to IP.

Not so. There's a logical basis for property ownership. For example, it's not judicial fiat to say property owners own their property because they have a better claim on it than anybody. That's one of the reason I own the computer I'm typing on. Similarly it's not baseless to say property rights are a way to distribute scarce resources among people in a society.

Furthermore, you don't need intellectual property for attribution. Many creators simply don't bother with copyright or patent protection, yet they're well known for their work because people like what they produce.

What are you talking about? The research argues against the case for the current patent system, not IP in general, which is much less a draconian slash-and-burn solution than what the libertarians usually come up with¹.  And besides, if I were allowed to freely steal all of your things, I'd have a lot more room to be "innovative" too. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't be punishing you in the process. Isn't that what you aren't accepting here? Your whole idea seems to be that getting rid of IP is protection good for innovation. Fine. But then you take it a step further, pretending that doing so won't have any adverse effects on the people doing the actual intellectual work. That's where the whole libertarian solution dives into la la land.

The study is one example out of a giant stack of literature that argues against IP. I wouldn't expect one study to refute every kind IP law or every supposed utility it provides.

And since we're discussing public policy, I'm talking about the aggregate effects of IP. There are individual examples that go both ways, of course. But that's not the point.

Dude, doing covers of glam-rock with Boskers does not count 

If you would've seen those chubby HR ladies bouncing in the moshpit during "Bohemian Rhapsody," you would be of a different opinion.

[Scheavo]

Hey WW, would you like it if I copied all our articles, crated my own blog, and got my own advertisers to pay for it? It would require nothing out of me, really, and I'd profit off of your writing, your thinking, and your work. Given the size of the internet, who would know? Perhaps some would eventually found out the original source, but many, many, many others would not - and that's something anyone who's spent any amount of time on the internet should know full well. Things are copied all the time, when it's illegal, and no one's the wiser. One reason people are able to trace it back to the original source is becuase of sourcing, copyrights, etc.

Writing for a reputable website, promoting with social media and developing an audience makes that virtually impossible on a large scale. But it does happen. I've found my stuff on obscure blogs and news aggregators without attribution. Still, most writers want to develop their own style and produce original content. Lifting other people's work will only get you so far.   

If you want to be a writer, yes, but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about simply making money, with no artistic intent. I could make a lot of clones of the "reputable" website that are common typos of the website, or so close, that a lot of people won't notice. We've all seen people's responses to onion articles as if they're real - people don't always look at what site their own, where it's sourced from, etc.

The problem, which is my point below, is that it's not very common in todays world due to IP laws, which do prevent it from happening more. If it was a free for all, the web would be full of hoax and clone sites, and it would become increasingly harder to tell which is the original and legitimate site. I don't have much computer programming experience, but I'm pretty sure I could write a program with a little research that would pretty much update my site the instant your site is updated; it's not hard to copy and steal source code, or source pages.

There's something I've noticed about libertarian theories; they often hinge upon some sort of government or some sort of theory they don't like to support it. It's like environmentalism, where libertarians insist the a strong personal definition of property rights would solve everything, but in order for that to solve anything, you have to have a fiat judicial system - i.e. government - in order for it to work. The same goes with IP, where every example given is possible due to at least some conception of IP; it's argued that people would favor the original artists, etc; but that favoring is only possible due to knowledge, which is only possible due to IP.

Not so. There's a logical basis for property ownership. For example, it's not judicial fiat to say property owners own their property because they have a better claim on it than anybody. That's one of the reason I own the computer I'm typing on.

Furthermore, you don't need intellectual property for attribution. Many creators simply don't bother with copyright or patent protection, yet they're well known for their work because people like what they produce.

There's a logical basis for IP ownership, and it's in fact the same logical basis for property ownership. Have you read Locke's essays on the topic? It's fundamentally about doing the work, taking something which is in common, and working on it, thus making it your own.

And yes, you are correct that you can still source and attribute without IP laws; I got a tad hyperbolisitc, and what I mean is that, the large-scale knowledge of who does what, etc, is possible due to IP laws. Without IP, you may know, some of the time, who did what, etc, but the process of IP and patents makes that knowledge much easier and more readily known, and that's something you're relying upon.

Similarly it's not baseless to say property rights are a way to distribute scarce resources among people in a society.

Wealth is a scarce resource, at any given time, and only so much money will go towards a given product - as in, only so much money can be made selling iPads, regardless of who is selling it. Should we, as a society, make that wealth less concentrated by doing away with IP laws? You might start appealing to some socialists that way, but it seems a fundamental dissonance with your libertarianism.

[rumborak]

BTW, I don't think anybody has failed to notice either that the population that most heavily supports Libertarianism, i.e. computer-literate people in their teens and twenties, stand to have the most gain from a policy that virtually decriminalizes digital theft. They want their software and music for free, so they support the theory that gives them that, no matter whether it makes sense or not. And the two current threads about it have so far left Lbertarianism as intellectual roadkill.

rumborak

[bosk1]

  I thought it was "computer-literate people in their 30s - 50s who spend 75% of their waking lives in front of their computers and/or in their parents' houses."

[rumborak]

I was trying to be kind

rumborak

[bosk1]

Oops.  My bad.  Once again, I am the proverbial bosk in a china shop.

[William Wallace]

BTW, I don't think anybody has failed to notice either that the population that most heavily supports Libertarianism, i.e. computer-literate people in their teens and twenties, stand to have the most gain from a policy that virtually decriminalizes digital theft. They want their software and music for free, so they support the theory that gives them that, no matter whether it makes sense or not. And the two current threads about it have so far left Lbertarianism as intellectual roadkill.

rumborak

You can't possibly know that, and even if it's true it doesn't refute the arguments made against IP.

The problem, which is my point below, is that it's not very common in todays world due to IP laws, which do prevent it from happening more. If it was a free for all, the web would be full of hoax and clone sites, and it would become increasingly harder to tell which is the original and legitimate site. I don't have much computer programming experience, but I'm pretty sure I could write a program with a little research that would pretty much update my site the instant your site is updated; it's not hard to copy and steal source code, or source pages.

That's in no way demonstrable. People lift content all the time, but saying it would be worse without IP protection isn't much better than asking me to prove a negative. Furthermore, anybody mimicking a website in the fashion you describe implies that the source is already reputable. It would probably already have a large audience and advertisers, and affiliate contracts with retailers like Amazon, and your argument ran into a wall three posts ago.

There's a logical basis for IP ownership, and it's in fact the same logical basis for property ownership. Have you read Locke's essays on the topic? It's fundamentally about doing the work, taking something which is in common, and working on it, thus making it your own.

I haven't. But I will if it's online. Link? I'll reserve judgement on specifics until I read it.

And yes, you are correct that you can still source and attribute without IP laws; I got a tad hyperbolisitc, and what I mean is that, the large-scale knowledge of who does what, etc, is possible due to IP laws. Without IP, you may know, some of the time, who did what, etc, but the process of IP and patents makes that knowledge much easier and more readily known, and that's something you're relying upon.

No, they don't. That's why there was such a massive lobbying effort behind SOPA, because IP protection as it stands doesn't prevent piracy or other unapproved sharing.

Wealth is a scarce resource, at any given time, and only so much money will go towards a given product - as in, only so much money can be made selling iPads, regardless of who is selling it. Should we, as a society, make that wealth less concentrated by doing away with IP laws? You might start appealing to some socialists that way, but it seems a fundamental dissonance with your libertarianism.

I don't have to appeal to contradictory points of view. My whole interest in this issue stems from the fact that these laws don't do what they're supposed to do, and often do the opposite, and I don't want flagrant internet censorship enacted in the name of protecting creators. In other words, my motivation is consistent with the idea at the base of all my political views: individual liberty.

  I thought it was "computer-literate people in their 30s - 50s who spend 75% of their waking lives in front of their computers and/or in their parents' houses."

Why are you reminding me that I spend an obscene amount of time here? I thought we were friends, bro.

[Scheavo]

That's in no way demonstrable. People lift content all the time, but saying it would be worse without IP protection isn't much better than asking me to prove a negative. Furthermore, anybody mimicking a website in the fashion you describe implies that the source is already reputable. It would probably already have a large audience and advertisers, and affiliate contracts with retailers like Amazon, and your argument ran into a wall three posts ago.

Just because you aren't realizing all the consequences of what I'm saying doesn't mean my argument ran into a wall. I'm not nor ever have said it would steal every bit of revenue that the site made, which is for some reason the rather stupid line of thinking you seem to be assuming I follow. It'd be diverting some rightful money to someone who does nothing but leech. In some area's, this could easily mean not enough capital to invest, and innovate.

There's a logical basis for IP ownership, and it's in fact the same logical basis for property ownership. Have you read Locke's essays on the topic? It's fundamentally about doing the work, taking something which is in common, and working on it, thus making it your own.

I haven't. But I will if it's online. Link? I'll reserve judgement on specifics until I read it.

Well, I guess not "essay" but section of the Second Treatise of Government where he talks about what property is. He is talking about land and the Commons, but I'm using his rational whereby something becomes your property by doing the work. Some other similarities I could draw, but recalling back, work was basically the building block for his concept of property.

And yes, you are correct that you can still source and attribute without IP laws; I got a tad hyperbolisitc, and what I mean is that, the large-scale knowledge of who does what, etc, is possible due to IP laws. Without IP, you may know, some of the time, who did what, etc, but the process of IP and patents makes that knowledge much easier and more readily known, and that's something you're relying upon.

No, they don't. That's why there was such a massive lobbying effort behind SOPA, because IP protection as it stands doesn't prevent piracy or other unapproved sharing.

I don't get how sharing really has anything to do with what I"m talking about in that quote? Either way, it's still a lousy argument, as it ignores what kind of effects there would be without any IP at all. There is less theft then compared to your proposal. I'm not sure who you think has ever argued that laws prevent crime from ever happening, but I sure have never made that argument. Your argument, that theft happens, therefor our laws against theft don't work, is completely fallacious.

Your logic:

A
:B

~B
:~A

It's called denying the Anteceent, and it's invalid; that is, wrong, not true.

If it isn't clear, the argument as to why IP is good is two-fold: moral, and innovation. In some area's you are right that our laws can get in the way if innovation - but not in all areas! In all area's, however, it is as immoral as theft of property.

Wealth is a scarce resource, at any given time, and only so much money will go towards a given product - as in, only so much money can be made selling iPads, regardless of who is selling it. Should we, as a society, make that wealth less concentrated by doing away with IP laws? You might start appealing to some socialists that way, but it seems a fundamental dissonance with your libertarianism.

I don't have to appeal to contradictory points of view. My whole interest in this issue stems from the fact that these laws don't do what they're supposed to do, and often do the opposite, and I don't want flagrant internet censorship enacted in the name of protecting creators. In other words, my motivation is consistent with the idea at the base of all my political views: individual liberty.

Except "liberty" does not mean can do whatever you want to, and you know that.

Are there any studies, at all, which look at the effects of IP in the pharmaceutical and technology field? Ya know, area's of the economy where it takes capital - i.e. money - in order to research and innovate? You need labs, you need materials, you need a team of scientists. Software needs one guy, some for music, and same for writing. And as others have said, suggesting changes and modification to the patent system is a lot different then saying we should do away with IP. Lessen the time a patent is exclusive, modify the rules so anyone can make changes to anyone elses idea, but that a small royalty is required for a few years, or hell, simply require a royalty, and never have a patent be exclusive. There are ways to change the laws which make innovation possible, and don't require us to just screw over people who come up with idea's, and try to justify theft because a lot of people are stealing.

[Scheavo]

By the way, I thought I'd share a potential outcome of IP laws: Google Book's. It happened to come up in the book I'm reading, and it's basically a perfect example for me to use.

So basically, they just started scanning anything and everything they could, and they took their route of only removing content at the request of infringers. They got sued, an negotiations proceeded. What resulted was similar to what I suggest IP can do, and that is Google continued to do what they were doing, with a portion of the revenue going to the copyright holders as a royalty, and some other ad perks.

Now, the whole thing happened becuase of IP laws, and a court system to back it up. Without that, lawsuits could not have been filed, or at least lawsuits could not have been forced to pay attention to, and the kind of cooperation we like to see the market create, comes about in a manner consensual to both parties involved.

[Rathma]

But despite these claims, internet piracy doesn't punish creators and artists. In fact, it is the legal war against consumers that has slowed innovation in the arts, and it's time we ended it.

Bullshit.  Straight up, 100%, unmitigated bullshit.  Why?  How can I prove it?  I've got the empty wallet to prove it.

$13,289.98 <----My personal out of pocket cost to produce my band's debut album "Back From Being Gone"   (click link in my sig for info /shamless plug)

Just out of curiosity what are your thoughts on people who illegally upload your music on sites like youtube?

[kirksnosehair]

I don't like it any more than I like them illegally downloading it from ThePirateBay.  But I don't think uploading it to youtube is quite as damaging to sales as uploading MP3s to torrent sites.

[Rathma]

I mentioned youtube because I saw that you posted a youtube link of a song of your band on 5/8. I can see why you would; you want more people to listen to your music. But don't you think you're being a little hypocritical? If you really believed that your music being on youtube was hurting sales wouldn't you be trying to remove the link, rather than spread it more on the internet? And by your logic aren't you hurting sales yourself by posting that link?

[kirksnosehair]

My record label posted the link to it on youtube.
(edited to add the link on my label's website)

Once the cat was out of the bag, might as well swim with the tide instead of against it.  Like I wrote above, I don't think YouTube has as big of a negative impact on sales as illegal downloading of MP3s does, but the bottom line for me is still that technically, if you rip a CD to your computer and upload it to youtube, you have most likely violated the artist's copyright, which is why YouTube routinely removes stuff.

(edited again for clarity)

[Rathma]

That's interesting because no where in the link (the one posted on 5/8) or even on the user's page (https://www.youtube.com/user/progmetalrock) does it indicate that the account belongs to the record label. Nor are there any links to where you can buy the album. It's like they're doing the exact thing as people who upload music illegally do, except they have a different motive.

[kirksnosehair]

If you're looking for an argument, I'm not the one.  I edited the post above for clarity.

Here's what happened:  Someone posted that song and a few others on YouTube.  The entire album was already streaming on my label's website long before this, so the fact that the songs got posted on youtube long after that wasn't all that big of deal to them.  In fact, since they have a video section on their website for their artists, as I mentioned above, they said "what the heck" and decided to just post the video on their site.  It doesn't really make any sense to swim against the tide in these situations, the cat, as I mentioned above, was already out of the bag.

With that said, we, as the owners of the copyright on this music, did not give permission to the person who uploaded it, so in theory I am not in favor of what they did, but it is what it is.

And as I mentioned above, because YouTube is more of a streaming thing when it comes to music, I don't think it's as damaging as downloading, so to me it's not all that big of a deal at the end of the day.  5700+ downloads from _____________ yeah, that kind of pissed me off.

[bosk1]

Besides that, I see nothing hypocritical about saying essentially, "I think it's wrong for fans to get free access to music, so as a fan, I wouldn't do that, but as a musician, I have to recognize that fans do get free access to music, so if I want to compete in this marketplace at all, I have to recognize that and at least use it to best promote the album."

[Rathma]

I guess I just would want you to be more clear about your frustration. Which of these would you not approve of?

- A person who bought the album, then illegally uploaded it on youtube.
- A person who listened to a song on youtube, illegally downloaded downloaded the album but later bought a copy after deciding that they like it.
- A person who illegally obtained the album and posted a download link on their popular blog with a note "Support the artists, buy the music". Assume that 1,000 people learned about your band and 5 people actually ended up buying the album.

[kirksnosehair]

I guess I just would want you to be more clear about your frustration. Which of these would you not approve of?

- A person who bought the album, then illegally uploaded it on youtube.
- A person who listened to a song on youtube, illegally downloaded downloaded the album but later bought a copy after deciding that they like it.
- A person who illegally obtained the album and posted a download link on their popular blog with a note "Support the artists, buy the music". Assume that 1,000 people learned about your band and 5 people actually ended up buying the album.

I don't "approve of" ANY of the illegal activity,but as bosk1 pointed out, I have tn choice but to accept certain realities. 

[kirksnosehair]

Besides that, I see nothing hypocritical about saying essentially, "I think it's wrong for fans to get free access to music, so as a fan, I wouldn't do that, but as a musician, I have to recognize that fans do get free access to music, so if I want to compete in this marketplace at all, I have to recognize that and at least use it to best promote the album."

Yeah, pretty much this.  And to clarify a bit.....I don't really have a problem with "free access to music" as long as my label controls it via free downloads or streaming from their site.  Or even the Progstreaming.com website, where we've uploaded the entire album.  That's all good.  Torrents, not so much.  That's just blatant theft.

[Rathma]

I guess I just would want you to be more clear about your frustration. Which of these would you not approve of?

- A person who bought the album, then illegally uploaded it on youtube.
- A person who listened to a song on youtube, illegally downloaded downloaded the album but later bought a copy after deciding that they like it.
- A person who illegally obtained the album and posted a download link on their popular blog with a note "Support the artists, buy the music". Assume that 1,000 people learned about your band and 5 people actually ended up buying the album.

I don't "approve of" ANY of the illegal activity,but as bosk1 pointed out, I have tn choice but to accept certain realities.

I'd say if you don't "approve" of the first example and yet you proliferate its very results by linking it, then you're being hypocritical. IMO though, arguing whether sales would be better or worse if online piracy didn't exist in nonsensical since the kind of market environment we're in is far too complicated and interlinked (for example, how many other things must not exist in a world with no online piracy?). What you could argue about though is enforcement of the law. I'll stop though since this isn't really relevant to the thread.

[kirksnosehair]

If you're looking for an argument, I'm not the one. 

Have a nice day, Rathma 

[Scheavo]

I can imagine enough differences to mean it's worth asking, but Kirk, does the radio bother you in the same way?

[Rathma]

Nice guitar work btw.

[kirksnosehair]

I can imagine enough differences to mean it's worth asking, but Kirk, does the radio bother you in the same way?

Why would the radio bother me?  Radio stations, be they on the web or on the air (and we're on both) seek and obtain permission to use our material.  My primary beef here is with people who use the material without permission. 


Rathma, thanks for the compliments on the guitar playing.  I can only take credit for the rhythm guitar, acoustic guitar, bass guitar (except for Fly and Carpe Diem) and any time you hear harmony lead guitars, other than that it was all guests.

[Scheavo]

I can imagine enough differences to mean it's worth asking, but Kirk, does the radio bother you in the same way?

Why would the radio bother me?  Radio stations, be they on the web or on the air (and we're on both) seek and obtain permission to use our material.  My primary beef here is with people who use the material without permission. 

Cause the radio is really going to be very similar to youtube, given the fact that there is the internet now. Some small changes need to be do be done so that it's more fair to copyright holders, but there's also copyright issues internal to the record industry that is unfair in my opinion.

[kirksnosehair]

You lost me there, Scheavo.  AFAIK we're not being broadcast without permission on any internet radio stations.  I know that my label sent out about 200 promotional copies of our CD to reviewers and radio stations.  We've had airplay in 10 different countries and on at least 20 internet radio stations that I am aware of, all of the ones I am aware of had permission to use the content.

When my label saw that some people had uploaded a few of the tracks to YouTube, we talked about whether or not it was worth it to make a copyright claim and get it taken down.  We came to the conclusion that YouTube doesn't really hurt sales all that much so why bother.  I think you could even make an argument that YouTube has the potential to help sales by getting you in front of some people you may not have been in front of.  I just don't take the next step that a lot kids take and use that argument to rationalize downloading.

Basically, to me, any audio stream is probably fairly benign.  It requires a lot of extra effort to record an audio stream from a place like YouTube or ProgStreaming or an internet radio station.  I liken it to the 70's and 80's when we'd record albums they played on radio stations.  None of that ever had the same impact on the music business as downloading did.  It's not the same, nowhere near as damaging as downloading, so I don't really worry too much about it.  Downloading is what's killing off small bands like mine.  If it wasn't for the fact that I'm an almost-50 year old professional with a fairly substantial income, some of it discretionary, I would never have been able to afford to make that album because I would have had to depend on selling enough copies of it to break even and the odds of that happening in the age of downloads are very slim.

To tie this back into the thread here, I think eliminating intellectual property is insane.  If anything, IP laws need to be given some more teeth. 

[Dark Castle]

The Music Industry rose 3% in sales in 2011, it was in my local Newspaper the other day when I was on break.  Just thought I'd leave that here as it relates to what we're discussing.

[kirksnosehair]

The Music Industry rose 3% in sales in 2011, it was in my local Newspaper the other day when I was on break.  Just thought I'd leave that here as it relates to what we're discussing.

Yeah, that's great!  So now it's only got 47% more to go to break even with where it was in 2000    At least the trend is moving in the right direction.

[Dark Castle]

I personally think more bands should utilize bandcamp.  It's a wonderful website, you can set up your merch anyway you please, free, pay what you want, straight up pay, some even have bundles, and you can listen to the music for free before making any decisions.

[Scheavo]

You lost me there, Scheavo. 

Not sure I really did, considering what followed. We're in like 99% agreement.

[kirksnosehair]

You lost me there, Scheavo. 

Not sure I really did, considering what followed. We're in like 99% agreement.

No, you definitely lost me in that post, but it's good that we agree 

[Scheavo]

You lost me there, Scheavo. 

Not sure I really did, considering what followed. We're in like 99% agreement.

No, you definitely lost me in that post, but it's good that we agree 

I was trying to just point out how similar someone uploading a song to youtube (especially that's already up there) is to what the radio is or was. Which is basically what you went into.

The other stuff was just how copyright holders should be able to negotiate with youtube to make the practice more fair, where applicable; but also that musicians often don't own their copyrights, which is bullshit. We don't have a patent/copyright system so that other people can take advantage of artists.

[Rathma]

The Music Industry rose 3% in sales in 2011, it was in my local Newspaper the other day when I was on break.  Just thought I'd leave that here as it relates to what we're discussing.

Yeah, that's great!  So now it's only got 47% more to go to break even with where it was in 2000    At least the trend is moving in the right direction.

What trend? Did less people illegally download music? (I reeeally doubt it) Did people decide that they wanted to buy music instead of pirate it because of legal risk? (I doubt that too) The industry made more money. Okay. That really says nothing about whether the situation has gotten better for artists or not, which seems to be your major concern.

[kirksnosehair]

The Music Industry rose 3% in sales in 2011, it was in my local Newspaper the other day when I was on break.  Just thought I'd leave that here as it relates to what we're discussing.

Yeah, that's great!  So now it's only got 47% more to go to break even with where it was in 2000    At least the trend is moving in the right direction.

What trend?

This one: