Slashdot Mirror

My university has adopted Java as the de facto language for CS majors. After one semester of Java (last semester was C++), I'm ready to revolt. The fact that I have to System.out.println() my life away is annoying, but having to Integer.valueOf(stdin.readline()).intValue() everything really ticks me off. After.all.the.searching.for.methods() I wonder if students don't just get lost in Java trying to work their way around the shotty syntax. I know I've certainly felt many times like the syntax got in the way of the original problem.

I found that the historical pictures have a weird and powerful emotional impact.

I think it's because the subject matter of many of them makes me do a double take. One is accustomed to looking at the primitive, cartoony graphics of computer games in a very casual, or at least emotionally shallow way. You may be plugged in at a tactical level, but not on a metaphysical level. I found myself looking at the pictures that way, then having a shock of recognition as the subject matter penetrated my brain.

My test of visual art is whether it makes me want to take a second look, to see something I didn't see before. By that standard these pictures are very powerful.

By the way, folks may be interested in the curator's essay.

As per the already posted Jon Haddock, the artist is 38. So maybe when he graduated back in '86 it might have been on a grant or just as easily he could have paid for it himself, but he'd definately not a kid. More on the project is available here.

"ASU? You mean Arizona State University? I run one of the computer labs there. Not only is there no cursed censorware on our systems, but we aren't allowed to stop customers from going to any sites they might want to. I think this is great. I'm not into pr0n myself, but I'll be damned if I think the government or some other "authority" has the right to tell anyone whether they can look at it. "

I wasn't complaining... "Bad EVIL" was for what they're trying to do with it... I'm glad that they're not banning access at ASU. That's what I meant.

ASU Linux Users Group - asulug.asu.edu

All you have to do is scratch the surface to see the puss ooze. For instance;

Actually, it was Linda Daschle, wife of Democratic Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle who lobbied on the behalf of the drug companies to pass the bill through.


Actually, if Hatch has balls why didn't he use them to put his name on his legislation???? See here.

Also, you can follow the history of this crap legislation here.

That, and if Disney were to have lost those trademarks, it would have lost the core of their business, costing a hell of a lot of jobs

It is not the purpose of the constitution to "provide jobs for Disney employees". Sure, that was Disney's teary eye plea, but it doesn't wash. This is the epitome of "corporate welfare". Maybe they could think of some new ideas to sell, like the constitution intended??? See all of the pathetic arguments dealt with here and here and here and most importantly here

He's an artist himself, so he undertstands both the need to protect content creators as well as the need for people to be able to copy works they own.

Actually, he doesn't have a clue. See this letter written to him.

And people who have "copyrights" don't "own" their work. It was only meant to be a temporary "right to copy". Not a perpetual "right to own". See this for a detailed history and explanation.

and what the hell relevance does it have to any of this anyway?

I guess when Senator Hatch speaks "in favor" of the consumer as he does here in the NYT article, he pegs the BS meter now.

As for the link, several Democratic senators were also involved in the copyright extensions

Oops, you're right here. This is not a "Democratic" or "Republican" issue. It's a "represent the public interest issue before those of lobbyists" issue.

It would have been a perfect troll otherwise.

All you have to do is scratch the surface to see the puss ooze. For instance;

Actually, it was Linda Daschle, wife of Democratic Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle who lobbied on the behalf of the drug companies to pass the bill through.


Actually, if Hatch has balls why didn't he use them to put his name on his legislation???? See here.

Also, you can follow the history of this crap legislation here.

That, and if Disney were to have lost those trademarks, it would have lost the core of their business, costing a hell of a lot of jobs

It is not the purpose of the constitution to "provide jobs for Disney employees". Sure, that was Disney's teary eye plea, but it doesn't wash. This is the epitome of "corporate welfare". Maybe they could think of some new ideas to sell, like the constitution intended??? See all of the pathetic arguments dealt with here and here and here and most importantly here

He's an artist himself, so he undertstands both the need to protect content creators as well as the need for people to be able to copy works they own.

Actually, he doesn't have a clue. See this letter written to him.

And people who have "copyrights" don't "own" their work. It was only meant to be a temporary "right to copy". Not a perpetual "right to own". See this for a detailed history and explanation.

and what the hell relevance does it have to any of this anyway?

I guess when Senator Hatch speaks "in favor" of the consumer as he does here in the NYT article, he pegs the BS meter now.

As for the link, several Democratic senators were also involved in the copyright extensions

Oops, you're right here. This is not a "Democratic" or "Republican" issue. It's a "represent the public interest issue before those of lobbyists" issue.

It would have been a perfect troll otherwise.

Regarding the breast implant thing, my recollection of the case is that there was a long running media "scandal" where various claims were made that the silicone used in implant was dangerous to health, especially if the implants rupture. Several lawsuits were introduced in various US, Canadian and British courts against the manufacturers, including Dow Corning, which was bankrupted by the affair, and had previously had an excellent reputation for ethical behaviour.

There actually seem to have been several efforts to use independent experts to resolve the case. The best reference appears to be this articel. There's so radical change to the usual common law way of doing things here, the judges just used independent experts to try to resolve conflicting claims and work out whose evidence to throw out.

I doubt this will really help with biased judges, or lawyers who fail to introduce relevant evidence (as seems to have happended in your jury story). Unfortunately this is the nature of our system: the lawyers decide what goes before the court and the judge decides whether its admissable. The Roman law "inquisitorial" jurisdictions (like France) have an advantage in that the magistrates can order new investigations and gather evidence themselves if they think it necessary. Of course, this still doesn't help if they're prejudiced, or can't see the need for new evidence.

Regarding your other comments: yeah, I agree the current system fails in the goal of transparency, and we already seem to be headed towards an elite cabal of technolawyers. I think we broadly agree that whats needed is some mechanism to ensure trials are not shrouded in gobbledegook of any kind, so the jury, and the watching public, can reach their conclusions.

Note that if copyright only lasted 15 years (as I believe it was originally written), Big Daddy's works would be in the public domain by now, and the public could rescue them freely. It seems as though copyright is interfering with the process of restoring and recording history.

The U.S. Copyright Act of 1790 allowed for a 14-year duration (a quite reasonable timeframe and a good balance of author incentive vs. public good), with another 14-year optional extension (in the 14th year), for a maximum of 28 years, which is plenty of time to capitalize on a creative work. (Especially when you consider that businesses usually make their plans based on expected returns within 5 years or so!) Works had to be registered with the Copyright office to receive protection; many works entered the public domain directly because the author didn't bother to register the copyright.

Copyright has been extended many times since then for the further enrichment of the rich, with no consideration given to the balance inherent in the "bargain" between the author and the public that copyright is supposed to represent. It's been twisted into an entitlement in many people's minds, a tool to enrich a few at great cost to the public. Copyright extensions (especially the last one) are enacted to preserve corporate profits (and the GNP), public be damned. It's a gross perversion of a system that was originally designed to benefit the public, not to enrich authors and "IP" owners.

A work goes in the public domain 50 years after the death of the author. Or 50 years after it was created if the author is a corporation (in Canada, other countries have similar thing, the period may change - I know that Disney want the period to be extended to 100 years, don't know it they managed to do it).

It was life + 50 years for individual authors and 75 years for corporate authors. Then the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act extended that by 20 years in both cases, to life + 70 years for individual authors and 95 years for corporate authors. Beyond the basic damage caused to the public domain, it was done retroactively (to Disney's delight), which is almost certainly unconstitutional. (Good luck getting a fair ruling on that one!) Ironically, Mickey Mouse may already be public domain, technically. (Good luck defending it against Disney's army of lawyers!)

A work goes in the public domain 50 years after the death of the author. Or 50 years after it was created if the author is a corporation (in Canada, other countries have similar thing, the period may change - I know that Disney want the period to be extended to 100 years, don't know it they managed to do it).

It was life + 50 years for individual authors and 75 years for corporate authors. Then the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act extended that by 20 years in both cases, to life + 70 years for individual authors and 95 years for corporate authors. Beyond the basic damage caused to the public domain, it was done retroactively (to Disney's delight), which is almost certainly unconstitutional. (Good luck getting a fair ruling on that one!) Ironically, Mickey Mouse may already be public domain, technically. (Good luck defending it against Disney's army of lawyers!)

A work goes in the public domain 50 years after the death of the author. Or 50 years after it was created if the author is a corporation (in Canada, other countries have similar thing, the period may change - I know that Disney want the period to be extended to 100 years, don't know it they managed to do it).

It was life + 50 years for individual authors and 75 years for corporate authors. Then the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act extended that by 20 years in both cases, to life + 70 years for individual authors and 95 years for corporate authors. Beyond the basic damage caused to the public domain, it was done retroactively (to Disney's delight), which is almost certainly unconstitutional. (Good luck getting a fair ruling on that one!) Ironically, Mickey Mouse may already be public domain, technically. (Good luck defending it against Disney's army of lawyers!)

A work goes in the public domain 50 years after the death of the author. Or 50 years after it was created if the author is a corporation (in Canada, other countries have similar thing, the period may change - I know that Disney want the period to be extended to 100 years, don't know it they managed to do it).

It was life + 50 years for individual authors and 75 years for corporate authors. Then the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act extended that by 20 years in both cases, to life + 70 years for individual authors and 95 years for corporate authors. Beyond the basic damage caused to the public domain, it was done retroactively (to Disney's delight), which is almost certainly unconstitutional. (Good luck getting a fair ruling on that one!) Ironically, Mickey Mouse may already be public domain, technically. (Good luck defending it against Disney's army of lawyers!)

I agree with the contributor who noted that 18th century notions of copyright are more important now than ever. In particular we need to recover the notion, expressed by Adam Smith, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, that copyrights and patents are monopolies in derogation of the public right, and are to be tolerated only to the extent that they encourage the growth of what we now call the public domain.

Some of this history is discussed in the articles posted here.

Of course the constitution needs to evolve. The question is whether any particular development is consistent with its fundamental principles. Since I identify the public domain as the fundamental principle of copyright, I consider the acts of 1998 (DMCA, CTEA) to be largely inconsistent with copyright's deep values.

Here is an essay that gives some background for you. With Google you can easily track down any references that look interesting. For instance here is what Jefferson had to say on the topic. The original rationale is what he said, and by their definition it has definitely been corrupted.

For instance the record industry bullies musicians into signing, and then owns the copyrights for the rest of that musician's life. Read that description and tell me that the system has *not* been corrupted!

In short, please don't mistake your ignorance on the topic for his.

Intellectual property is an artificially granted monopoly for the purpose of encouraging people to create and give away useful ideas. Key to that concept was a limited term. Today the industry is doing everything to make that term "forever minus a day" (in Jack Valenti's words).

That is too much.

Regards,
Ben

Unfortunately I have not found a free MacOS X server which runs full-screen. With MacX, you can have an X root window in a Macintosh window (with its requisite title bar and menubar) or you can have a separate window for each X client and no root window.

I have also successfully run Debian on my IIci but it's kinda slow and it hung for some reason. I haven't gotten as far as installing X yet, because I can't seem to install anything with dselect or apt... it hangs while "resolving dependencies". Granted, the installation is maybe a year old, so maybe this is an old bug that's since been fixed.

Well, for starters, 64-bit systems usually comes with 64-bit data paths (buses). I'm saying usually because one could in theory implement a 8-bit bus that semantically behaved like a 64-bit bus. For instance, Amigas have 32-bit CPUs, but were equipped with a 16-bit bus. Having wider buses helps a great deal for most applications since the memory bandwidth is increased.

Also, 64-bit systems usually comes with a bus address path that is more than 32 bits. For instance, MIPS is 64-bit and is equipped with a bus that accepts 54 address bits (is this correct?). This enables you to put more than 4GB of memory into the machine and actually access the memory in a clean way from you appliction.

One of the most intriguing aspects of 64-bit architectures though, is that your virtual memory addess space is 64 bits. This allow you to implement things like single address space operating systems. You can also have huge files mapped into your address space (imagine having a movie of, say a few hundred gigs, mapped into your application), easing the development of applications tremendously. You could denote a few upper bits of an address to identifying hosts, and implement a large cluster of distributed shared memory. You could denote parts of the address to containing the process id, leaving you with a system where one particular address is unique both over time and among other applications. The list goes on...

As you can see, 64-bit architectures offer some obvious performance advantages. The biggest advantage though, as I see it, is that it opens up the door for some interseting operating system research/design.

...the other day I wrote a rebuttal to a recent interview on Salon.com...here it is again. Hilary, are you listening?

--

To Hilary Rosen. A Retort. v1.1

This is a quick dissection of your recent interview with Salon.com. Please respond if you have a moment.

Your quotes are in italics, questions are in bold, my comments are in plain text.

While ultimately I don't think litigation is the right business strategy over the long term,

Would that be 20 years long term? It will take at least that long for a generation to forget.

I do think that Napster is guilty of copyright infringement, and we will have both a favorable court decision and some precedents set for companies that try and commercialize file sharing.

Why is sharing so bad? And I am shocked that you didn't say "commercialize file pirating." Some would call that a Fruedian slip.

There is certainly a lot of intrigue in the notion of file sharing -- for community reasons and for marketing reasons and for putting like people with like-minded interests together.

Nice, it even sounds good coming from you.

Clearly I understand all that.

For some reason I don't believe you.

But those issues really should be divorced from the very unique and specific issue, Does a company have a right to create a system that is so deliberately designed to take other people's work?

Why do we need another divorce? This country needs healing. It needs the power of community. I lost you after "does a company have a right..."

It's interesting in court -- the Napster lawyer tried to make the argument that file-sharing services like Napster actually bring the Internet back to its original purpose and history, which was when university researchers would share their research with their colleagues around the world.

Perish the thought. Please tell me, again, why this is a bad thing for anyone?

That was a very valuable and exciting thing that happened, but there's a principal difference between that activity and what businesses like Napster are engaged in -- it was those professors' works that they themselves were sharing!

Again with the sharing? This is the word we're talking about right? "a : to partake of, use, experience, occupy, or enjoy with others b : to have in common" That's the bad word?

As a practical matter going forward, lawsuits get a lot of headlines and they raise a lot of passion -- I understand that.

Not yet you don't. I still have three friends that haven't heard about you yet.

But ultimately the future of music on the Internet is not going to be about legalities and litigation, it's going to be about how are we bringing music to fans -- new music,

Yes, it is. But I don't think you know what "we" means yet.

established artists -- what are the new business models that people are adopting and how do you make all the new opportunities win-win.

BY SHARING THE MUSIC. YOU HAVE A FREE RESOURCE. USE IT! I can explain this philosophy in greater detail if you like. So can a bunch of others around here. Click that "user info" button and look for a conversation (still ongoing) with Eric the .5b

I don't think anybody has illusions about controlling all transmissions online.

I do (think some have illusions, not have them myself).

The question is, How do you compete if services available to give it away without regard to the creators are allowed to flourish with such customer-service-friendly tools?

If you ask the wrong question, the answer doesn't matter. Remove the words "without regard to the creators" and you are on the right track. The Net is like that, it doesn't really make sense in most traditional terms.

Gnutella is a little harder to use than Napster, but there also ways to enforce against Gnutella users that you don't have with Napster.

Hehe, that would be funny to watch. I don't think you want to try and fight that battle.

Are Napster and online distribution of music causing the record industry to rethink or change its business models?

It doesn't necessarily change -- it expands. I personally believe people will want to buy CDs for a long time to come, [agreed] but I also believe they want to have subscriptions, kiosks in stores and airports, digital downloads ...

I don't, but then again I'm one of your core customers. At least I used to be.

I believe the expansion is where the conflict and the opportunity arrives. It behooves technology innovators to help develop those concepts in partnership with the music community. It's not accurate to say that the record industry says no.

What is it accurate to say? The record industry says "go for it, we have good lawyers and lots of money?"

There's no question that the industry has been slow to the marketplace, but it's too simplistic to say that the slowness or speed is out of some fear.

Simplicity sells technology. Just something I've noticed. I see fear in all your actions. Most creatures that are panicing don't notice it themselves, but again, those are just my observations.

It's more accurate to say that these are very complex transitions with a lot of interests and players involved -- artists and publishers and distributors and retailers and technology partners. There are a whole host of changes, and new structures that have to be created to move into these worlds.

That's the big problem. There are so many players involved. We need two players. Artists and Fans. Which one are you? We don't need new structures either. We have the Net. It's a new structure, we like it. How much of it have you guys built? How much have you tried to destroy? Can you see why we (I) don't like you (plural)?

It's not necessarily what people always want to hear, but I do believe that it is complex.

You just keep on digging into the unnecessary complexities of the business models you have created. I'll be listening to some music.

It's not whether or not somebody is killing CD sales this week -- it's whether music has value, and is perceived to have value in and of itself by fans, and by technology companies and venture capitalists who are investing in new businesses and have to pay for everything from their server space to their telephone lines to their lunchboxes.

Simplify, simplify. How many venture capitalists do you know that would give money to a company that starts out with the idea "First, we sue everyone with a different business model..." (step three: Profit!)

Paying for the content they are using is not an unreasonable request. I think it's a value quotient, not necessarily a piracy fear, that is also important to consider.

You should search this site. I'm sure somebody will give you a clue as to the nature of supply, demand, and value quotients on the Internet. "Not necessarily a piracy fear", I thought you guys weren't scared?

It goes back to the earlier issue that whether or not the record companies and artists are making money selling CDs is irrelevant to Napster; they are building a business on the backs of artists.

And your business would be built where?

Just because [artists] are making money elsewhere doesn't mean Napster has the right to do this. It's a self-serving argument for Napster.

*COUGH*

No one is arguing Chicken Little here;

Sometimes you should listen to a little pen^H^H^Hchicken. The sky has indeed fallen.

what we are saying is that if that geometric [try exponential] progression is such that music has less and less value, ultimately you do get to a scenario where it's hard for the legitimate businesses to compete. No one says we're there, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where we're going.

No it doesn't. Have you ever seen a fifty-year-old rocket crash into the ground? Be patient. Shouldn't be too long now.

It's an artists issue. Cynics say the record industry doesn't like that model because it takes them out of the equation. But it's not true -- artists like it when they have a record that's so successful that they get to stay home for a few months rather than go on tour.

Do artists also like "works for hire"? Here's a link from your page. And here's a link about where you paid to get the law changed. And here's one to a quick rundown on how artists fare with your current business model.

You are limiting the artists' choices. And secondly, a significant part of the meaning of the music is creating the demand for the work.

i.e. Marketing. Yea we've heard of it. I don't remember that in my music appreciation class in college though. Must'a skipped that day after a ragin' Rage show.

And creating that demand for the music and the artist is very much a marketing and promotional function the record company does. The costs associated with that have to be absorbed somewhere.

Yes, those costs must be absorbed. And we, the fans, would be more than happy to do it. Just let us copy, digitally, our music files (that we bought and paid for) and allow us to take care of that marketing part for you, and that distrubution part for you, and that reproction part for you. You just sell CDs. We'll tell our friends what sucks. And what kicks ass. MP3 is about as good as quality as radio, if you haven't noticed. CD's sound better. They still travel better. They look good on coffee tables. We're not going to stop buying CD (unless you quit fretting and bring us DVD-AUDIO, and yes, it will get broken)

Things will evolve and the industry has always given away music for free, but it's really inappropriate that the only ways that artists should be able to make money off their craft is touring, if in fact people are enjoying their music anyway.

Remember we are paying for that promotion and distrubution so you don't have to. You can take all that money you save and give it straight to the artists. And why don't you give their copyrights back after you stop promoting them? That doesn't seem fair to me, but then again I didn't lobby to have copyright extended for an additional 20 years after death.

Not to mention the whole crop of artists that don't have the ability to tour.

I'm sure studio musicians will still have skills that are useful to somebody. Perhaps they can teach in schools after the sudden revival in the public's taste for live music? I mean, MP3 is great, CDs are better, but you can't beat the real thing. Don't forget that.

What was your reaction when you heard that Napster was sponsoring the Limp Bizkit tour?

I thought Napster must be desperate to have to pay $2 million to get someone to support them.

I think you might have wanted to think about this one for a second or two. Exactly how much did you guys spend last year on Congress? What's the annual promotion budget for New York?

I didn't think it was a thoughtful statement about the long-term economics of the record industry -- it was an anti-establishment, rock 'n' roll publicity thing for them to do.

Yes, and...? You 'member Elvis shaking them hips don'cha? What an anti-establishment, rock n' roll thing for him to do.

There's no question that the multitude of artists who have spoken out against Napster far outweigh this kind of publicity stunt, but I hope that their fans realize that these artists actually care about their work, and care about their art, and care about their ability to keep making it.

No question, eh? No question? Now would that be artists as in "signed, sealed, and delivered on the dotted line" or artists as in "a person skilled in one of the fine arts." I don't remeber seeing that national statistics poll, I must've been asleep at the wheel.

I think if Napster has ideas for alternative business models, they haven't said them yet.

Since when did "put music in the hands of fans" become an alternative business model. What is radio supposed to be? What's MTV for again? What do you guys do?

I don't think it's my place to do that. If people are creating businesses that use other people's work like that, it behooves them to come up with some other scenario at the outset that does the right thing. Where they go from here is the subject of obviously complicated scenarios.

Obviously complicated scenaries, i.e. lawsuits. You've got that part of the business plan down pat. Keep the course.

There are mutual responsibilities, but obviously as this case is in litigation, suffice it to say that Napster has never come up with a scenario. And I don't think anybody in the record industry has any indication that that is a viable option.

The record industry? What's a record? Oh, you mean those big plastic CD's? I remember seeing one of those when I was five (and music never sounded so good, analog is a good way to preserve quality, hint, hint) Of course you don't see it as a viable option, that's the problem.

The business models that MP3.com have put forward are interesting business models. The issue with MP3.com is simply of them not seeking licenses prior to the launching of their system.

So you mean in addition to buying your CD, I have to get some ethereal "license" to listen to it? We are talking about my.mp3.com, right? Try and stay on-topic, that's what the lawsuit is about. That, and bankruptcy.

I do get a particular laugh out of technology entrepreneurs who try and say that the record industry has screwed artists over the years. But what is it, now it's their turn?

Oh, we're doing the screwing all right. But the artists have had enough, if you catch my drift. I get a particular laugh too, haw-hah!

We have gone through an interesting shift here. The RIAA is a trade organization that was never a public entity or necessarily had any public profile. So it's quite a different role for us to all of a sudden respond not just to the music community but to the public itself.

The Internet exposes dark organizations. Have you heard about Echelon? Area51? There's some pictures around here somewhere... Unfortunately the power has shifted. You no longer are dealing with someone coming to you for a resource only you control. Now you have to deal with us, and we control the resources.

But I've learned a lot: A lot of people don't know what record companies do and what they bring to the equation -- helping to develop the talent and create the demand. That's been interesting.

Oh, just wait. This party is just getting started. Most of the players aren't even here yet. We live in interesting times, indeed.

When you go to buy a Chevy, you generally know something about General Motors being a decent company.

Define decent for me. I do not think it means what you think it means. (Not a knock on GM, just a question about your example)

When you want to buy a Bruce Springsteen record, you don't think much about Sony Music; that's been deliberate by these companies over the years. As a result, a lot of other people have painted on that blank canvas. If we could do that over, maybe we'd do that differently. But maybe not.

A painting on a black canvas. What an apt metaphor. No wonder it's taken so long to see it clearly.

I cheerfully await a response. I fervently hope that this crosses your desk at some time in the future. I've been harsh, perhaps unnecessarily so, but I hope you can get around my sarcasm and cynicism and see what I have for you here. Don't be afraid to by cynical in response. A little laugh might do us all good at this point. Let's get a conversation going and maybe we can save you some litigation costs.

Thanks,

Roy M. Taylor

a.k.a. Wah

--

over at Salon

The crew have rejected it twice, so I'll burn more karma.
--
To Hilary Rosen. A Retort.

This is a quick dissection of your recent interview with Salon.com. Please respond if you have a moment.

Your quotes are in italics, questions are in bold, my comments are in plain text.

While ultimately I don't think litigation is the right business strategy over the long term,

Would that be 20 years long term? It will take at least that long for a generation to forget.

I do think that Napster is guilty of copyright infringement, and we will have both a favorable court decision and some precedents set for companies that try and commercialize file sharing.

Why is sharing so bad? And I am shocked that you didn't say "commercialize file pirating." Some would call that a Fruedian slip.

There is certainly a lot of intrigue in the notion of file sharing -- for community reasons and for marketing reasons and for putting like people with like-minded interests together.

Nice, it even sounds good coming from you.

Clearly I understand all that.

For some reason I don't believe you.

But those issues really should be divorced from the very unique and specific issue, Does a company have a right to create a system that is so deliberately designed to take other people's work?

Why do we need another divorce? This country needs healing. It needs the power of community. I lost you after "does a company have a right..."

It's interesting in court -- the Napster lawyer tried to make the argument that file-sharing services like Napster actually bring the Internet back to its original purpose and history, which was when university researchers would share their research with their colleagues around the world.

Perish the thought. Please tell me, again, why this is a bad thing for anyone?

That was a very valuable and exciting thing that happened, but there's a principal difference between that activity and what businesses like Napster are engaged in -- it was those professors' works that they themselves were sharing!

Again with the sharing? This is the word we're talking about right? "a : to partake of, use, experience, occupy, or enjoy with others b : to have in common" That's the bad word?

As a practical matter going forward, lawsuits get a lot of headlines and they raise a lot of passion -- I understand that.

Not yet you don't. I still have three friends that haven't heard about you yet.

But ultimately the future of music on the Internet is not going to be about legalities and litigation, it's going to be about how are we bringing music to fans -- new music,

Yes, it is. But I don't think you know what "we" means yet.

established artists -- what are the new business models that people are adopting and how do you make all the new opportunities win-win.

BY SHARING THE MUSIC. YOU HAVE A FREE RESOURCE. USE IT! I can explain this philosophy in great detail if you like. Click that "user info" button and look for a conversation (still ongoing) with Eric the .5b

I don't think anybody has illusions about controlling all transmissions online.

I do (think some have illusions, not have them myself).

The question is, How do you compete if services available to give it away without regard to the creators are allowed to flourish with such customer-service-friendly tools?

If you ask the wrong question, the answer doesn't matter. Remove the words "without regard to the creators" and you are on the right track. The Net is like that, it doesn't really make sense in most traditional terms.

Gnutella is a little harder to use than Napster, but there also ways to enforce against Gnutella users that you don't have with Napster.

Hehe, that would be funny to watch. I don't think you want to try and fight that battle.

Are Napster and online distribution of music causing the record industry to rethink or change its business models?

It doesn't necessarily change -- it expands. I personally believe people will want to buy CDs for a long time to come, [agreed] but I also believe they want to have subscriptions, kiosks in stores and airports, digital downloads ...

I don't, but then again I'm one of your core customers. At least I used to be.

I believe the expansion is where the conflict and the opportunity arrives. It behooves technology innovators to help develop those concepts in partnership with the music community. It's not accurate to say that the record industry says no.

What is it accurate to say? The record industry says "go for it, we have good lawyers and lots of money?"

There's no question that the industry has been slow to the marketplace, but it's too simplistic to say that the slowness or speed is out of some fear.

Simplicity sells technology. Just something I've noticed. I see fear in all your actions. Most creatures that are panicing don't notice it themselves, but again, those are just my observations.

It's more accurate to say that these are very complex transitions with a lot of interests and players involved -- artists and publishers and distributors and retailers and technology partners. There are a whole host of changes, and new structures that have to be created to move into these worlds.

That's the big problems. There are so many players involved. We need two players. Artists and Fans. Which one are you? We don't need new structures either. We have the Net. It's a new structure, how much of it have you guys built? How much have you tried to destroy? Can you see why we (I) don't like you (plural)?

It's not necessarily what people always want to hear, but I do believe that it is complex.

You just keep on digging into the unnecessy complexities of the business models you have created. I'll be listening to some music.

It's not whether or not somebody is killing CD sales this week -- it's whether music has value, and is perceived to have value in and of itself by fans, and by technology companies and venture capitalists who are investing in new businesses and have to pay for everything from their server space to their telephone lines to their lunchboxes.

Simplify, simplify. How many venture capitalists do you know that would give money to a company that starts out with the idea "First, we sue everyone with a different business model..." (step three: Profit!)

Paying for the content they are using is not an unreasonable request. I think it's a value quotient, not necessarily a piracy fear, that is also important to consider.

You should search this site. I'm sure somebody will give you a clue as to the nature of supply, demand, and value quotients on the Internet. "Not necessarily a piracy fear", I thought you guys weren't scared?

It goes back to the earlier issue that whether or not the record companies and artists are making money selling CDs is irrelevant to Napster; they are building a business on the backs of artists.

And your business would be built where?

Just because [artists] are making money elsewhere doesn't mean Napster has the right to do this. It's a self-serving argument for Napster.

*COUGH*

No one is arguing Chicken Little here;

Sometimes you should listen to a little pen^H^H^Hchicken. The sky has indeed fallen.

what we are saying is that if that geometric [try exponential] progression is such that music has less and less value, ultimately you do get to a scenario where it's hard for the legitimate businesses to compete. No one says we're there, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where we're going.

No it doesn't. Have you ever seen a fifty-year-old rocket crash into the ground? Be patient. Shouldn't be too long now.

It's an artists issue. Cynics say the record industry doesn't like that model because it takes them out of the equation. But it's not true -- artists like it when they have a record that's so successful that they get to stay home for a few months rather than go on tour.

Do artists also like works for hire? Here's a link from your page. And here's a link about where you paid to get the law changed. And here's one to a quick rundown on how artists fare with your current business model.

You are limiting the artists' choices. And secondly, a significant part of the meaning of the music is creating the demand for the work.

i.e. Marketing. Yea we've heard of it. I don't remember that in my music appreciation class in college though. Must'a skipped that day after a ragin' Rage show.

And creating that demand for the music and the artist is very much a marketing and promotional function the record company does. The costs associated with that have to be absorbed somewhere.

Yes, they do. And we, the fans, would be more than happy to do it. Just let us copy, digitally, our music files (that we bought and paid for) and allow us to take care of that marketing part for you. We'll tell our friends what sucks. And what kicks ass. MP3 is about as good as quality as radio, if you haven't noticed. CD's sound better. They still travel better. They look good on coffee tables. We're not going to stop buying CD (unless you quit fretting and bring us DVD-AUDIO, and yes, it will get broken)

Things will evolve and the industry has always given away music for free, but it's really inappropriate that the only ways that artists should be able to make money off their craft is touring, if in fact people are enjoying their music anyway.

Remember we are paying for that promotion and distrubution so you don't have to. You can take all that money you save and give it straight to the artists. And why don't you give their copyrights back after you stop promoting them? That doesn't seem fair to me, but then again I didn't lobby to have copyright extended for an additional 20 years after death.

Not to mention the whole crop of artists that don't have the ability to tour.

I'm sure studio musicians will still have skills that are useful to somebody. Perhaps they can teach in schools after the sudden revival in the public's taste for live music? I mean, MP3 is great, CDs are better, but you can't beat the real thing. Don't forget that.

What was your reaction when you heard that Napster was sponsoring the Limp Bizkit tour?

I thought Napster must be desperate to have to pay $2 million to get someone to support them.

I think you might have wanted to think about this one for a second or two. Exactly how much did you guys spend last year on Congress? What's the annual promotion budget for New York?

I didn't think it was a thoughtful statement about the long-term economics of the record industry -- it was an anti-establishment, rock 'n' roll publicity thing for them to do.

Yes, and...? You 'member Elvis shaking them hips don'cha? What an anti-establishment, rock n' rock thing for him to do.

There's no question that the multitude of artists who have spoken out against Napster far outweigh this kind of publicity stunt, but I hope that their fans realize that these artists actually care about their work, and care about their art, and care about their ability to keep making it.

No question, eh? No question? Now would that be artists as in "signed, sealed, and delivered on the dotted line" or artists as in "a person skilled in one of the fine arts." I don't remeber seeing that national statistics poll, I must've been asleep at the wheel.

I think if Napster has ideas for alternative business models, they haven't said them yet.

Since when did "put music in the hands of fans" become an alternative business model. What is radio supposed to be? What's MTV for again?

I don't think it's my place to do that. If people are creating businesses that use other people's work like that, it behooves them to come up with some other scenario at the outset that does the right thing. Where they go from here is the subject of obviously complicated scenarios.

Obviously complicated scenaries, i.e. lawsuits. You've got that part of the business plan down pat. Keep the course.

There are mutual responsibilities, but obviously as this case is in litigation, suffice it to say that Napster has never come up with a scenario. And I don't think anybody in the record industry has any indication that that is a viable option.

The record industry? What's a record? Oh, you mean those big plastic CD's? I remember seeing one of those when I was five (and music never sounded so good, analog is a good way to preserve quality, hint, hint) Of course you don't see it as a viable option, that's the problem.

The business models that MP3.com have put forward are interesting business models. The issue with MP3.com is simply of them not seeking licenses prior to the launching of their system.

So you mean in addition to buying your CD, I have to get some ethereal "license" to listen to it? We are talking about my.mp3.com, right? Try and stay on-topic, that's what the lawsuit is about. That, and bankruptcy.

I do get a particular laugh out of technology entrepreneurs who try and say that the record industry has screwed artists over the years. But what is it, now it's their turn?

Oh, we're doing the screwing all right. But the artists have had enough, if you catch my drift. I get a particular laugh too, haw-hah!

We have gone through an interesting shift here. The RIAA is a trade organization that was never a public entity or necessarily had any public profile. So it's quite a different role for us to all of a sudden respond not just to the music community but to the public itself.

The Internet exposes dark organizations. Have you heard about Echelon? Area51? There's some pictures around here somewhere... Unfortunately the power has shifted. You no longer are dealing with someone coming to you for a resource only you control. Now you have to deal with us, and we control the resources.

But I've learned a lot: A lot of people don't know what record companies do and what they bring to the equation -- helping to develop the talent and create the demand. That's been interesting.

Oh, just wait. This party is just getting started. Most of the players aren't even here yet. We live in interesting times, indeed.

When you go to buy a Chevy, you generally know something about General Motors being a decent company.

Define decent for me. I do not think it means what you think it means. (Not a knock on GM, just a question about your example)

When you want to buy a Bruce Springsteen record, you don't think much about Sony Music; that's been deliberate by these companies over the years. As a result, a lot of other people have painted on that blank canvas. If we could do that over, maybe we'd do that differently. But maybe not.

A painting on a black canvas. What an apt metaphor. No wonder it's taken so long to see it clearly.

I cheerfully await a response. I fervently hope that this crosses your desk at some time in the future. I've been harsh, perhaps unnecessarily so, but I hope you can get around my sarcasm and cynicism and see what I have for you here. Don't be afraid to by cynical in response. A little laugh might do us all good at this point. Let's get a conversation going and maybe we can save you some litigation costs.

Thanks,

Roy M. Taylor

a.k.a Wah on /.

--

Speaking of April Fools....Did anyone see this? Here's my retort

--

To Hilary Rosen. A Retort.

This is a quick dissection of your recent interview with Salon.com. Please respond if you have a moment.

Your quotes are in italics, questions are in bold, my comments are in plain text.

While ultimately I don't think litigation is the right business strategy over the long term,

Would that be 20 years long term? It will take at least that long for a generation to forget.

I do think that Napster is guilty of copyright infringement, and we will have both a favorable court decision and some precedents set for companies that try and commercialize file sharing.

Why is sharing so bad? And I am shocked that you didn't say "commercialize file pirating." Some would call that a Fruedian slip.

There is certainly a lot of intrigue in the notion of file sharing -- for community reasons and for marketing reasons and for putting like people with like-minded interests together.

Nice, it even sounds good coming from you.

Clearly I understand all that.

For some reason I don't believe you.

But those issues really should be divorced from the very unique and specific issue, Does a company have a right to create a system that is so deliberately designed to take other people's work?

Why do we need another divorce? This country needs healing. It needs the power of community. I lost you after "does a company have a right..."

It's interesting in court -- the Napster lawyer tried to make the argument that file-sharing services like Napster actually bring the Internet back to its original purpose and history, which was when university researchers would share their research with their colleagues around the world.

Perish the thought. Please tell me, again, why this is a bad thing for anyone?

That was a very valuable and exciting thing that happened, but there's a principal difference between that activity and what businesses like Napster are engaged in -- it was those professors' works that they themselves were sharing!

Again with the sharing? This is the word we're talking about right? "a : to partake of, use, experience, occupy, or enjoy with others b : to have in common" That's the bad word?

As a practical matter going forward, lawsuits get a lot of headlines and they raise a lot of passion -- I understand that.

Not yet you don't. I still have three friends that haven't heard about you yet.

But ultimately the future of music on the Internet is not going to be about legalities and litigation, it's going to be about how are we bringing music to fans -- new music,

Yes, it is. But I don't think you know what "we" means yet.

established artists -- what are the new business models that people are adopting and how do you make all the new opportunities win-win.

BY SHARING THE MUSIC. YOU HAVE A FREE RESOURCE. USE IT! I can explain this philosophy in great detail if you like. Click that "user info" button and look for a conversation (still ongoing) with Eric the .5b

I don't think anybody has illusions about controlling all transmissions online.

I do (think some have illusions, not have them myself).

The question is, How do you compete if services available to give it away without regard to the creators are allowed to flourish with such customer-service-friendly tools?

If you ask the wrong question, the answer doesn't matter. Remove the words "without regard to the creators" and you are on the right track. The Net is like that, it doesn't really make sense in most traditional terms.

Gnutella is a little harder to use than Napster, but there also ways to enforce against Gnutella users that you don't have with Napster.

Hehe, that would be funny to watch. I don't think you want to try and fight that battle.

Are Napster and online distribution of music causing the record industry to rethink or change its business models?

It doesn't necessarily change -- it expands. I personally believe people will want to buy CDs for a long time to come, [agreed] but I also believe they want to have subscriptions, kiosks in stores and airports, digital downloads ...

I don't, but then again I'm one of your core customers. At least I used to be.

I believe the expansion is where the conflict and the opportunity arrives. It behooves technology innovators to help develop those concepts in partnership with the music community. It's not accurate to say that the record industry says no.

What is it accurate to say? The record industry says "go for it, we have good lawyers and lots of money?"

There's no question that the industry has been slow to the marketplace, but it's too simplistic to say that the slowness or speed is out of some fear.

Simplicity sells technology. Just something I've noticed. I see fear in all your actions. Most creatures that are panicing don't notice it themselves, but again, those are just my observations.

It's more accurate to say that these are very complex transitions with a lot of interests and players involved -- artists and publishers and distributors and retailers and technology partners. There are a whole host of changes, and new structures that have to be created to move into these worlds.

That's the big problems. There are so many players involved. We need two players. Artists and Fans. Which one are you? We don't need new structures either. We have the Net. It's a new structure, how much of it have you guys built? How much have you tried to destroy? Can you see why we (I) don't like you (plural)?

It's not necessarily what people always want to hear, but I do believe that it is complex.

You just keep on digging into the unnecessy complexities of the business models you have created. I'll be listening to some music.

It's not whether or not somebody is killing CD sales this week -- it's whether music has value, and is perceived to have value in and of itself by fans, and by technology companies and venture capitalists who are investing in new businesses and have to pay for everything from their server space to their telephone lines to their lunchboxes.

Simplify, simplify. How many venture capitalists do you know that would give money to a company that starts out with the idea "First, we sue everyone with a different business model..." (step three: Profit!)

Paying for the content they are using is not an unreasonable request. I think it's a value quotient, not necessarily a piracy fear, that is also important to consider.

You should search this site. I'm sure somebody will give you a clue as to the nature of supply, demand, and value quotients on the Internet. "Not necessarily a piracy fear", I thought you guys weren't scared?

It goes back to the earlier issue that whether or not the record companies and artists are making money selling CDs is irrelevant to Napster; they are building a business on the backs of artists.

And your business would be built where?

Just because [artists] are making money elsewhere doesn't mean Napster has the right to do this. It's a self-serving argument for Napster.

*COUGH*

No one is arguing Chicken Little here;

Sometimes you should listen to a little pen^H^H^Hchicken. The sky has indeed fallen.

what we are saying is that if that geometric [try exponential] progression is such that music has less and less value, ultimately you do get to a scenario where it's hard for the legitimate businesses to compete. No one says we're there, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where we're going.

No it doesn't. Have you ever seen a fifty-year-old rocket crash into the ground? Be patient. Shouldn't be too long now.

It's an artists issue. Cynics say the record industry doesn't like that model because it takes them out of the equation. But it's not true -- artists like it when they have a record that's so successful that they get to stay home for a few months rather than go on tour.

Do artists also like works for hire? Here's a link from your page. And here's a link about where you paid to get the law changed. And here's one to a quick rundown on how artists fare with your current business model.

You are limiting the artists' choices. And secondly, a significant part of the meaning of the music is creating the demand for the work.

i.e. Marketing. Yea we've heard of it. I don't remember that in my music appreciation class in college though. Must'a skipped that day after a ragin' Rage show.

And creating that demand for the music and the artist is very much a marketing and promotional function the record company does. The costs associated with that have to be absorbed somewhere.

Yes, they do. And we, the fans, would be more than happy to do it. Just let us copy, digitally, our music files (that we bought and paid for) and allow us to take care of that marketing part for you. We'll tell our friends what sucks. And what kicks ass. MP3 is about as good as quality as radio, if you haven't noticed. CD's sound better. They still travel better. They look good on coffee tables. We're not going to stop buying CD (unless you quit fretting and bring us DVD-AUDIO, and yes, it will get broken)

Things will evolve and the industry has always given away music for free, but it's really inappropriate that the only ways that artists should be able to make money off their craft is touring, if in fact people are enjoying their music anyway.

Remember we are paying for that promotion and distrubution so you don't have to. You can take all that money you save and give it straight to the artists. And why don't you give their copyrights back after you stop promoting them? That doesn't seem fair to me, but then again I didn't lobby to have copyright extended for an additional 20 years after death.

Not to mention the whole crop of artists that don't have the ability to tour.

I'm sure studio musicians will still have skills that are useful to somebody. Perhaps they can teach in schools after the sudden revival in the public's taste for live music? I mean, MP3 is great, CDs are better, but you can't beat the real thing. Don't forget that.

What was your reaction when you heard that Napster was sponsoring the Limp Bizkit tour?

I thought Napster must be desperate to have to pay $2 million to get someone to support them.

I think you might have wanted to think about this one for a second or two. Exactly how much did you guys spend last year on Congress? What's the annual promotion budget for New York?

I didn't think it was a thoughtful statement about the long-term economics of the record industry -- it was an anti-establishment, rock 'n' roll publicity thing for them to do.

Yes, and...? You 'member Elvis shaking them hips don'cha? What an anti-establishment, rock n' rock thing for him to do.

There's no question that the multitude of artists who have spoken out against Napster far outweigh this kind of publicity stunt, but I hope that their fans realize that these artists actually care about their work, and care about their art, and care about their ability to keep making it.

No question, eh? No question? Now would that be artists as in "signed, sealed, and delivered on the dotted line" or artists as in "a person skilled in one of the fine arts." I don't remeber seeing that national statistics poll, I must've been asleep at the wheel.

I think if Napster has ideas for alternative business models, they haven't said them yet.

Since when did "put music in the hands of fans" become an alternative business model. What is radio supposed to be? What's MTV for again?

I don't think it's my place to do that. If people are creating businesses that use other people's work like that, it behooves them to come up with some other scenario at the outset that does the right thing. Where they go from here is the subject of obviously complicated scenarios.

Obviously complicated scenaries, i.e. lawsuits. You've got that part of the business plan down pat. Keep the course.

There are mutual responsibilities, but obviously as this case is in litigation, suffice it to say that Napster has never come up with a scenario. And I don't think anybody in the record industry has any indication that that is a viable option.

The record industry? What's a record? Oh, you mean those big plastic CD's? I remember seeing one of those when I was five (and music never sounded so good, analog is a good way to preserve quality, hint, hint) Of course you don't see it as a viable option, that's the problem.

The business models that MP3.com have put forward are interesting business models. The issue with MP3.com is simply of them not seeking licenses prior to the launching of their system.

So you mean in addition to buying your CD, I have to get some ethereal "license" to listen to it? We are talking about my.mp3.com, right? Try and stay on-topic, that's what the lawsuit is about. That, and bankruptcy.

I do get a particular laugh out of technology entrepreneurs who try and say that the record industry has screwed artists over the years. But what is it, now it's their turn?

Oh, we're doing the screwing all right. But the artists have had enough, if you catch my drift. I get a particular laugh too, haw-hah!

We have gone through an interesting shift here. The RIAA is a trade organization that was never a public entity or necessarily had any public profile. So it's quite a different role for us to all of a sudden respond not just to the music community but to the public itself.

The Internet exposes dark organizations. Have you heard about Echelon? Area51? There's some pictures around here somewhere... Unfortunately the power has shifted. You no longer are dealing with someone coming to you for a resource only you control. Now you have to deal with us, and we control the resources.

But I've learned a lot: A lot of people don't know what record companies do and what they bring to the equation -- helping to develop the talent and create the demand. That's been interesting.

Oh, just wait. This party is just getting started. Most of the players aren't even here yet. We live in interesting times, indeed.

When you go to buy a Chevy, you generally know something about General Motors being a decent company.

Define decent for me. I do not think it means what you think it means. (Not a knock on GM, just a question about your example)

When you want to buy a Bruce Springsteen record, you don't think much about Sony Music; that's been deliberate by these companies over the years. As a result, a lot of other people have painted on that blank canvas. If we could do that over, maybe we'd do that differently. But maybe not.

A painting on a black canvas. What an apt metaphor. No wonder it's taken so long to see it clearly.

I cheerfully await a response. I fervently hope that this crosses your desk at some time in the future. I've been harsh, perhaps unnecessarily so, but I hope you can get around my sarcasm and cynicism and see what I have for you here. Don't be afraid to by cynical in response. A little laugh might do us all good at this point. Let's get a conversation going and maybe we can save you some litigation costs.

Thanks,

Roy M. Taylor

a.k.a Wah on /.
--

someone explained the philosophy behind patents and copyrights as a guarantee that ideas would eventually be released to the public and not held as secrets. That idea is so extremely and completely wrong

If we had no laws protecting intellectual property, we would see the production of such works fall off dramatically.

So Congress keeps increasing the term of copyright, such that effectively it is not for a limited time, but forever.

In another forum, someone wrote:

Doesn't the copyright thing have a length of time before becoming public domain like patents do? If that's the case it may be alright to use it in the way you want.

Yes, and Congress in their wisdom has recently extended it to 95 years.

On average, over the last fourty years they've done a year-per-year increase. It appears that they intend to keep this up forever, despite the fact that Article I Section 8 Clause 8 of the US Constitution only grants the Congress the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for LIMITED TIMES to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" (emphasis added).

The intent of the system was that by granting a monopoly for a limited time, it would encourage the creation of works which would eventually pass into the public domain, for the benefit of all. But Congress is intent on making sure that works never become public domain so long as there may be money to be made from them.

Apparently we will never again expand the body of literature or music that is public domain. Once the works are no longer making a profit, they will go out of print, because only the publisher has the rights to them. Unlike the works of Beethoven and Dickens, which may well be accessible to the public for thousands of years, the works of today's great composers and authors will likely disappear forever.

And then consider software. By the time software goes out of copyright, even if binaries still exist, the source code probably won't. Maybe people 95 years from now won't actually want to use today's software for business purposes, but they won't even be able to look at it for historical reasons.

One good thing about the patent system is that the inventor or assignee has to make maintenance payments or the patent will lapse prematurely. I strongly believe that the same thing should be done with copyrights. Once it is no longer worthwhile for the owner to pay to keep the copyright up to date, the work should enter the public domain.

I also believe that copyrights on unpublished works should be disallowed, as they do not "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". These sort of copyrights are used for software source code. In my opinion, any work for which Copyright protection is desired (published or not) should be required to be registered, and a copy (in entirety) be filed with the Copyright office, such that it is available for public inspection, and that upon expiration of the copyright it is guaranteed to be available to those that want it. Currently copyright registration is optional, although without registration there are fewer legal remedies for infringement. This does not seem to "promote the Progress" in any obvious way.

Well, enough of my ranting. For more information on copyright term extension, please see the web page:

http://www.public.asu.edu/~dkarjala/

Which discusses and has links to infomration on several current legal battles related to copyright term.

At this point I would also add that copyright protection on unpublished works such as source code is in fact completely unnecessary, as the unpublished work can be protected by trade secret law. Copyright was not intended to cover secrets, and is ill-suited to doing so.

If I were to take a more radical position, I might suggest that to secure copyright on object code, perhaps it should be required to also copyright the source code it was generated from, and deposit both with the copyright office. This would better serve to guarantee that the work would eventually not just become public domain, but also be usable as a base for further development. Merely having the object code become public domain without the source code is of much less value to society. In this scenario, a legitimate defense against claimed copyright infringement would be that the source code deposited by the copyright owner was incomplete or otherwise unusable to build the object code.

Of course, realistically I realize that there is little chance of getting any sort of copyright reform to restore the intended purpose. But if we don't educate people as to what the intended purpose was, the chance is zero.

Based on an email I received from the Academic Advisor for the whole College of Engineering the ASU EV Team is going to be participating at this event. There homepage is HERE. I will probably attend the event and bring my digital camera with me. If so I will post some of the pictures on the web with the space ASU has provided me.

At last check, JAWSAT wasn't working too well or at all. It's a shame because JAWSAT had a camera that was taking pictures of the deployment of the other nanosatellites. That would have let us see what we looked like after launch so we could check for external damage. Not likely, I know, but it would be one less question.

Hope that clears things up.

Dear Senator Newman,

I am not a constituent of the State of Virginia, but I am a citizen of
the United States of America. So, your upcoming decision on the UCITA may
affect me as much as anyone in Virginia. Please, for the sake of consumers,
citizens, living and breathing people everywhere, do not allow this law to be
ratified. Turn it down.

I'm sure that the voters of Virginia, when they voted for you, expected you to
be the one to represent them and protect their rights. Ask yourself for a
moment who's advocate you wish to play. It seems that the House of
Representatives for the State of Virginia are unanimously in the pocket of big
business in your state. No doubt the lobbying of AOL and others have blinded
them from the truth.

As you can imagine, I do not normally write to state senators in other states.
But this particular case is too important. The UCITA, if enacted, will destroy
any rights that citizens may claim to in the coming of the information age. It
grants companies the power to digitally paralyze anyone they wish with little
fear of retaliation. It's not just possible to sign one's rights away anymore.
The UCITA would make it possible to unknowingly click one's rights away.

People everywhere, not just in Virginia, and not just in the US, will be held
hostage by technology companies granted this power by the UCITA. We will
be forced to succumb to the will and liscenses of large technology companies or
not become a member of the digital age. We will essentially be forced to
sacrifice our rights for a chance to even look upon any technology. If you
don't understand why this is, I have web-site I would like you to visit. I have
written it to describe my feelings on this terrible law:
Please go read it.

Please do not let this happen. Do not let yourself be bought out by big
business. Remember what real human beings will have to go through because of
this. Vote down the UCITA.

Citizen of Arizona, of the United States of America, of the Planet Earth
Peter Thatcher, peterthatcher@asu.edu

Please tell me what you think.

I heard about this. I understood at the time that it was illegal to explain the mistake in UK courts, because it would just confuse the jurors. The only article I can find about it now, here says its only discouraged.

The site http://www.public.asu.edu/~dkarjala/ has a lot of information about the Sonny Bono Copyright Act and the disgusting lobbying that went on to get the legislation passed. It also has sample letters to Congress and Congresional addresses.

I urge everyone to write their representatives complaining about the subversion of copyright and intellectual property rights that the industry is in the process of conducting. It is worth also mentioning the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, which allows even the terms of access to copyrighted works to be dictated, and the resulting assault by the MPAA on our rights to view DVDs we purchased.

To those who say your voice is not heard, most members of Congress and people in government are ordinary folk looking to continue in their jobs. Both soft money industry donations and your voice matter. If you think your voice cannot match the lobby funds of industry titans - you are mistaken.

Taking a cynical view that public interest plays no role, in a purely economic analysis, their is a cost to every vote. Given the money spent on campaigns and the number of votes actually up for grabs - that is a significant conversion price, probably comparable to a $500 donation.

A thousand letters from constituents to every representative addressing will make a difference. So please put a fraction of the time spent reading Slashdot into efforts to inform Congress and the media about the abuse of IP laws!

Check out this site at NASA. It describes a satellite built by undergraduate students at Arizona State University. It was launched successfully on Jan. 27. I belive students could actually register for a class where the lab involved working on the satellite (I'm not sure...I'm EE, not Aerospace). In any case, the numbers are pretty impressive: more than 350 students worked on the program including a substantial number of undergrads. The launch vehicle also boosted a number of projects from other universities into orbit as well.

I am beginning to join the ranks of the cynical . This is beginning to feel more and more like a money site than a community...

(Sheesh. Somebody with the squishdot source want to open a new site?)


It's been tried. Guess what? For practical purposes, the current version of Slashdot is CLOSED SOURCE! That's right, the only source they made available last I checked was Slash 2 and pre-3, both of which were only marginally useable. I HOPE someone forks off Slash development and manages it responsibly, because Rob "Mr. OpenSource" Malda talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk.

"Waitaminute", you'll say: "Rob doesn't get paid to do support his source". Not directly, no... but he makes his money off the OS community, and even among big soulless corporations, it's customary to throw us a bone now and then. So nevermind 'support'... you would think that the least he could do would be to practice what he preaches, and put a fsking tarball of the scripts in his /usr/local/slash directory onto his sources page. That's all we ask.

Then, the folks over at http://projects.is.asu.edu/mai lman/listinfo/slash-help will be able to fix all his broken code, document it, and redistribute it like they did version "pre-3".

Okay, so that strayed off topic, but it needed to be said. Rob, stop holding out on us please.

Read the very informative page Opposing Copyright Extension.

Copyrights have been extended an average of about 1 year per year since 1962. The latest extension, the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension act of 1998 extends corporate copyrights to 95 years, retroactively. Since the stated purpose of copyrights in the constitution is to encourage the production of art and science by giving a monopoly for a limited time, retroactive extensions are IMHO unconstitutional. The current extension madness seems designed to make sure that Mickey never enters the public domain.
--

The 1201(a)(1) only protects copyrighted work. When the first CSS protected DVD work is no longer copyrighted, it will probably be legal to distribute DeCSS since it will then have the legitimate commercial use of decrypting public domain DVDs. This will occur in around 2090. The chances of DVDs still being playable then seem slim.

Even worse, congress seems bent on extending Copyrights indefinitely. Disney can't loose the copyright on Mickey after all. Copyrights have been extended retroactively (how's does retroactive copyright promote art?) at an average rate of one year per year since 1962. So if you think that DMCA is unconstitutional on time grounds, read Opposing Copyright Extension and be prepared to get really mad.
--

Reverse engineering and further exemptions for certain research: under certain conditions, a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a computer program may circumvent a technological access control to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing portions of the program that are necessary to achieve inter-operability of an independently created computer program with other programs. Circumvention to allow interoperability. Despite the manufacturing and distribution prohibitions, a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure to enable the identification and analysis, or for the purpose of enabling inter-operability, to the extent that doing so does not otherwise constitute infringement.

"Moderation is good, in theory."
-Larry Wall

I understand both sides of the issue. It is Rob's code. No law says he has to release it. But, out of respect for the community in which he has become such an icon, he could at least be honest about it. If the code is heading for a close source, then say so. If it is truely going for open source, give us a target date. We have heard 'soon' since mid-1999 at least.

Odviously, Rob, you are taking a bit of flack for this, and you must see that inflamatory remarks like the '24 delay' comment don't help the situation, though I understand your frustration.

I also understand that you probably won't give us an target, but you may find yourself catching a bit less flack if you give us a bit more than just an undefined 'soon'. Give us a plan with some meat. Will it be released under a standard GNU? A modified GNU? Will we have to link to Andover as well as Slashdot? What features will be included and what won't (moderation, PGP keys, karma, etc.) in the initial 0.4 release? Give us some positive discussion on the topic instead of just voicing you frustration.

Here is some info on slashcode help and alternative code bases:

The slash-help mailing list is here. This list discusses the original slashcode 0.3, as well as non-Malda flavors of slash and the pro's and con's of each.

A forked version of the 0.3 code is availible here.

PHPSlash is being developed independently of the Malda crew. It can be had here.

A Zope version called Squishdot is also availible.

DOINS is also an alternative slashcode base, though I've not worked with it personally.

I've seen some comments about slashsites not giving credit to Rob and Co. Please remember that these other versions of the code exist and are completely seperate. So, just because a site looks like slashdot doesn't mean its using Rob's code. That said, most of the non-0.3/0.2 sites are run by fans of Slashdot and so have links to it. Squishdot for example.

It's really easy for someone to complain that I didn't release a new version of the source code every week. Its also easy to forget that in the last 6 months we've doubled in traffic and we've had to optimize our code and hardware to handle that. A new source release is secondary: Our job is running Slashdot. We want to release new versions of Slash, but it is a definite second priority to keeping Slashdot moving.

I'm really glad Rob said this.

For those of you who don't know, Temple Hoff is running a mailing list called Slash-help: the Slash Code Support Group. This is for anyone who is trying to take the 0.3 release of the code and make it work on their own server.

The list has been a little slow for the past couple of months now. But, it's gotten more lively in the past week or so, because many of the people who have made postings critical of Rob and Jeff here today have been refining their arguments.

It's sort of funny that people are complaining about the delays associated with a 0.4 release because these same people would be complaining loudly if 0.4 were out now and the main Slashdot site was suffering repeated outages.

Another thing that seems to be getting lost is that releasing a new version of the code in an OpenSource project is a two edged sword. Sure, you can put out a partially functional application -- some would say that's a good description of 0.3. But, if they put 0.4 out in an incomplete state, and people responded with fixes for problems, many would complain about the speed at which changes were incorporated into the CVS tree.

I've invested a lot of time modifying 0.3 to work in a different environment. It's been one of the best learning experience I've had in years. I recommend it highly to anyone who is really interested in how a content management system works. A lot of the techniques they use in 0.3 are available elsewhere, in systems like Vignette and Interwoven. The only thing is that they cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to implement.

When 0.4 is released, we will evaluate it and probably incorporate some of its features into what we are doing. Most people who have some real investment in the Slashdot architecture will have to do that also.

If you are sitting out there observing this, trying to figure out who's right, ask yourself this question: Do the people who are shouting the loudest for releasing the latest source have anything invested in understanding, operating, and enhancing the Slash environment? If not, have they seriously evaluated what is available, or do they come from the "Boycott {insert evil capitalist enterprise name here}!" School of Idealism?

You are entitled to any opinion about this process that you want to assert. But, I guarantee that 0.4 will have as many support issues as 0.3, if not more. It's going to be more complicated. Regardless of how many people are involved in the enhancement process, it will be some time before you can install and operate this in anything close to a turn-key fashion.

At the end of the day, I come from the school that believes in an author's right to determine the circumstances underwhich he releases his code. If Rob and Jeff want to go slowly, that is their right and we ought to respect that. And, the fact that there has been a long gap between the 0.3 and 0.4 releases does not suddenly make the Slash engine a Closed Source product.

--

Dave Aiello

Swing by Matthew Sachs' Slash-help list. Personally, I'm planning on finishing up my dynamic front-page code, slapping it on Matt's CVS server or something, and never thinking about it again. There's no reason Rob couldn't do the same, but we'll get it done (eventually) without him.

By then, I'm sure everyone interested will have migrated to Squishdot or PHPSlash, but c'est la vie.

I heard there was a slashdot code mailing list, but alast I can not find it. Also some guy from lilthfair.org claimed to have hacked up .3 enough for an actucally release, but he suddenly disappeared without ever being heard of again, and lilthfair.org is down. I think Rob "The Commandor" Taco broke his knee caps, and rightfully so.

The slash-help mailing list is here. This list discusses the original slashcode 0.3, as well as non-Malda flavors of slash and the pro's and con's of each.

A forked version of the 0.3 code is availible here.

PHPSlash is being developed independently of the Malda crew. It can be had here.

A Zope version called Squishdot is also availible.

I've seen some comments about slashsites not giving credit to Rob and Co. Please remember that these other versions of the code exist and are completely seperate. So, just because a site looks like slashdot doesn't mean its using Rob's code. That said, most of the non-0.3/0.2 sites also have mention and links to slashdot. Squishdot for example.

Here are my questions:

So far slashdot is the only site I know of that IS a self-moderating community. If other code bases begin creating moderation/metamoderation models, are they in danger of a Malda patient on metamoderation/karma or the self-moderating community concept? I think I can guess at the answer, but it would be good to have some official verbage on this from Rob.

Those of us actively working with slashcode 0.3 etc. understand the nature of beta and don't expect a 1.0 release. 0.4 would be fine even it is doesn't work, like 0.3 didn't when it was released. We will gladly fix it. Given the long period of time that 0.4 has been promised (check here for a post by Rob back in June about releasing 0.4 and here is one in August), the fact that the slash community is not likely to forget that promise, and the fact 0.3 has rather silly Y2K problems (see the slash-help list archive for fixes) will you, finally release SOMETHING or admit that the Slashdot code is in reality and practice close sourced beyond 0.3?

Would you please add a link to the slash-help mailing list mentioned above (http://projects.is.asu.edu/mailman/listinfo/slash -help) to the www.slashdot.org/code.shtml page?

If it hasn't exactly shown in this post, Rob does great code. My compliments! You have us hooked and we want more! -Temple

The slash-help mailing list is here. This list discusses the original slashcode 0.3, as well as non-Malda flavors of slash and the pro's and con's of each.

A forked version of the 0.3 code is availible here.

PHPSlash is being developed independently of the Malda crew. It can be had here.

A Zope version called Squishdot is also availible.

I've seen some comments about slashsites not giving credit to Rob and Co. Please remember that these other versions of the code exist and are completely seperate. So, just because a site looks like slashdot doesn't mean its using Rob's code. That said, most of the non-0.3/0.2 sites also have mention and links to slashdot. Squishdot for example.

Here are my questions:

So far slashdot is the only site I know of that IS a self-moderating community. If other code bases begin creating moderation/metamoderation models, are they in danger of a Malda patient on metamoderation/karma or the self-moderating community concept? I think I can guess at the answer, but it would be good to have some official verbage on this from Rob.

Those of us actively working with slashcode 0.3 etc. understand the nature of beta and don't expect a 1.0 release. 0.4 would be fine even it is doesn't work, like 0.3 didn't when it was released. We will gladly fix it. Given the long period of time that 0.4 has been promised (check here for a post by Rob back in June about releasing 0.4 and here is one in August), the fact that the slash community is not likely to forget that promise, and the fact 0.3 has rather silly Y2K problems (see the slash-help list archive for fixes) will you, finally release SOMETHING or admit that the Slashdot code is in reality and practice close sourced beyond 0.3?

Would you please add a link to the slash-help mailing list mentioned above (http://projects.is.asu.edu/mailman/listinfo/slash -help) to the www.slashdot.org/code.shtml page?

If it hasn't exactly shown in this post, Rob does great code. My compliments! You have us hooked and we want more! -Temple

The slash-help mailing list is here. This list discusses the original slashcode 0.3, as well as non-Malda flavors of slash and the pro's and con's of each.

A forked version of the 0.3 code is availible here.

PHPSlash is being developed independently of the Malda crew. It can be had here.

A Zope version called Squishdot is also availible.

I've seen some comments about slashsites not giving credit to Rob and Co. Please remember that these other versions of the code exist and are completely seperate. So, just because a site looks like slashdot doesn't mean its using Rob's code. That said, most of the non-0.3/0.2 sites also have mention and links to slashdot. Squishdot for example.

Here are my questions:

So far slashdot is the only site I know of that IS a self-moderating community. If other code bases begin creating moderation/metamoderation models, are they in danger of a Malda patient on metamoderation/karma or the self-moderating community concept? I think I can guess at the answer, but it would be good to have some official verbage on this from Rob.

Those of us actively working with slashcode 0.3 etc. understand the nature of beta and don't expect a 1.0 release. 0.4 would be fine even it is doesn't work, like 0.3 didn't when it was released. We will gladly fix it. Given the long period of time that 0.4 has been promised (check here for a post by Rob back in June about releasing 0.4 and here is one in August), the fact that the slash community is not likely to forget that promise, and the fact 0.3 has rather silly Y2K problems (see the slash-help list archive for fixes) will you, finally release SOMETHING or admit that the Slashdot code is in reality and practice close sourced beyond 0.3?

Would you please add a link to the slash-help mailing list mentioned above (http://projects.is.asu.edu/mailman/listinfo/slash -help) to the www.slashdot.org/code.shtml page?

If it hasn't exactly shown in this post, Rob does great code. My compliments! You have us hooked and we want more! -Temple

The slash-help mailing list is here. This list discusses the original slashcode 0.3, as well as non-Malda flavors of slash and the pro's and con's of each.

A forked version of the 0.3 code is availible here.

PHPSlash is being developed independently of the Malda crew. It can be had here.

A Zope version called Squishdot is also availible.

I've seen some comments about slashsites not giving credit to Rob and Co. Please remember that these other versions of the code exist and are completely seperate. So, just because a site looks like slashdot doesn't mean its using Rob's code. That said, most of the non-0.3/0.2 sites also have mention and links to slashdot. Squishdot for example.

Here are my questions:

So far slashdot is the only site I know of that IS a self-moderating community. If other code bases begin creating moderation/metamoderation models, are they in danger of a Malda patient on metamoderation/karma or the self-moderating community concept? I think I can guess at the answer, but it would be good to have some official verbage on this from Rob.

Those of us actively working with slashcode 0.3 etc. understand the nature of beta and don't expect a 1.0 release. 0.4 would be fine even it is doesn't work, like 0.3 didn't when it was released. We will gladly fix it. Given the long period of time that 0.4 has been promised (check here for a post by Rob back in June about releasing 0.4 and here is one in August), the fact that the slash community is not likely to forget that promise, and the fact 0.3 has rather silly Y2K problems (see the slash-help list archive for fixes) will you, finally release SOMETHING or admit that the Slashdot code is in reality and practice close sourced beyond 0.3?

Would you please add a link to the slash-help mailing list mentioned above (http://projects.is.asu.edu/mailman/listinfo/slash -help) to the www.slashdot.org/code.shtml page?

If it hasn't exactly shown in this post, Rob does great code. My compliments! You have us hooked and we want more! -Temple

The slash-help mailing list. Home of the embittered would-be open-source slash contributors.

"Moderation is good, in theory."
-Larry Wall

The 0.3 code that code.shtml links to has many known bugs. A lot of those have been fixed in 0.3-3.7, available here. There is a mailing list, slash-help, for help with Slash problems.

It would be curious...if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, received instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.

From a commentary by Tim Phillips on the unconstitionality of the Sony Bono Copyright Extension Act. This commentary, and the entire site at http://www.public.asu.edu/~dkarjala/ are well worth reading.

Jefferson did not oppose patents and copyrights altogether, but viewed them as a means to provide incentive to invent such that society benefits. It seems that recent political rhetoric has leaned the other way, viewing intellectual property protection as the natural right of the corporate author rather than a temporary priviledge bestowed by society. This is particularily true in copyright law where at the current pace of copyright extension seems designed to prevent Mickey Mouse from ever entering the public domain.

It would be curious...if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, received instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.

From a commentary by Tim Phillips on the unconstitionality of the Sony Bono Copyright Extension Act. This commentary, and the entire site at http://www.public.asu.edu/~dkarjala/ are well worth reading.

Jefferson did not oppose patents and copyrights altogether, but viewed them as a means to provide incentive to invent such that society benefits. It seems that recent political rhetoric has leaned the other way, viewing intellectual property protection as the natural right of the corporate author rather than a temporary priviledge bestowed by society. This is particularily true in copyright law where at the current pace of copyright extension seems designed to prevent Mickey Mouse from ever entering the public domain.

It would be curious...if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed
in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive
property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as
long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and
the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less,
because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, received instruction himself
without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.

Help for people trying to run the Slash engine is available from The Slash-Help Mailing List.

Sadly it's 95 years for corporate authors or 75 years from the creators death and appears to be on track to be extendeded indefinitely. There is an excellent resource on the copyright extensions, the corporate lobbying by Disney and others, and the constitutional challenges to the extention. It is well worth reading.
--

Copyright ends after the creators death + 70 years. Or 95 years from publication for corporate authors. We have Disney to thank for the most recent extension from 50 and 75 because the Mickey Mouse copyright was reaching the previous deadline in 2004. And we all know that a public domain Mickey would be the end of the world as we know it.

The idea of copyright is much different than trademark. Trademark is intended to allow brand differentiation and avoid consumer confusion. Copyright is intended to allow creators to benefit from creative work in exchange for eventually releasing that work to the public domain. Although at this rate it looks like 20th century works will never enter the public domain. Extentions have been made at an average rate of 1 year per year since 1962.

If anything, copyright terms should be going down, not up in this fast changing world. If you care about this issue read http://www.public.asu.edu/~dkarjala/what.html. It's an eyeopener.
--

Copyright ends after the creators death + 70 years. Or 95 years from publication for corporate authors. We have Disney to thank for the most recent extension from 50 and 75 because the Mickey Mouse copyright was reaching the previous deadline in 2004. And we all know that a public domain Mickey would be the end of the world as we know it.

The idea of copyright is much different than trademark. Trademark is intended to allow brand differentiation and avoid consumer confusion. Copyright is intended to allow creators to benefit from creative work in exchange for eventually releasing that work to the public domain. Although at this rate it looks like 20th century works will never enter the public domain. Extentions have been made at an average rate of 1 year per year since 1962.

If anything, copyright terms should be going down, not up in this fast changing world. If you care about this issue read http://www.public.asu.edu/~dkarjala/what.html. It's an eyeopener.
--