Could you please be so kind as to post your name, address and phone number, please? Oh, and leave your keys under the mat.
All the people who made products you may or may not have in your house just want to stop by once a quarter to make sure they get paid for what they produce. You can't just expect them to do nothing and hope that you'll be nice and pay them. Those books you picked up at the "clearing out old stuff event" at the library? The authors deserve to get paid for what they produce. Representatives for Mr. King will be over shortly to conduct an audit. If you are found to be out of compliance, they will rip out all but the first chapter. You can use the 'downgraded' copy to decide if you want to make a full purchase.
On top of all that it's not like you want to release your code to the public right away anyway. As a scientist you're in competition with groups around the world to publish first. You describe in your paper the science you think you implemented, someone else who wants to verify your results gets to write a new chunk of code which they think is the same science and you compare. Giving out a scientists code for inspection means someone else will have a working software platform to publish papers based on your work, and that's not so good for you. For all the talk of research for the public good, ultimately your own good, of continuing to publish (to get paid) trumps a public need. That's a systematic problem, and when you're competing with a research group in brazil, and you're in canada their rules are different than yours, and so you keep things close to the chest.
Bullshit. If this kind of thinking is prevalent in the field you're familiar with/in, then it's an unhealthy field and probably isn't producing good science.
First, this "play it close to the chest so someone doesn't steal my stuff" isn't common in the scientific areas I'm familiar with (biochemistry, biophysics, chemistry, biomedical computing, bioinformatics). People may hold off on releasing info because it's not ready or because it's too new and untested, but rarely because somebody may steal it and beat them. When this behavior does happen, it's usually between bitter rivals and mostly viewed as unhealthy. In practice, preliminary results and work-in-progress see the light of day pretty early, whether in talks given as an invited speaker or as a presentation of work in progress at a conference or symposium. That's considered healthy, because it gives people a chance to talk about their work with their peers *before* it gets published so the work is that much better.
Second, how is software different from any other piece of lab equipment, reagent, tool or method? If it can be purchased, other folks already have it or are planning to, if it's any good. If you developed it in house, you should be discussing it with people as described above, because it might not be as good as you think. The strength of science is based on the free exchange of ideas, and that includes how it's done, not just the results.
Medieval alchemists were good at keeping secrets too. Compare how well their approach worked relative to the free exchange that characterizes the last several hundred years.
thanks for perpetuating the stereotype that your profession is full of arrogant assholes.
In my experience it's not a stereotype - it's true enough sometimes that exceptions are worth noting.:-)
The reality is that being an arrogant asshole isn't always a liability in science, and in many contexts may be an asset. For example, nice people don't call bullshit when they see it, even if they should - that would be impolite. But politeness doesn't result in better science, while a no-bullshit, no-compromise attitude often does. Some people can turn it off at the end of the day, many can't. They go home alone, but they still do good science.
This should probably be its own story so more people get to see it, particularly those who are defending H.264 or are not aware of all the implications of standardizing on it.
A lot of commercial software comes with H.264 encoders and decoders, and some computers arrive with this software preinstalled. This leads a lot of people to believe that they can legally view and create H.264 videos for whatever purpose they like. Unfortunately for them, it ain’t so.
The article goes on to discuss the limitations on H.264 use in actual practice using examples of actual licenses. As I read it, the authorized software used to encode H.264 videos places strict limits on the use of the resulting video. This seems to be a problem not mentioned much in the context of royalty-free streaming of H.264 over the web, and infringement may actually be facilitated by the latter (by making these videos more ubiquitous).
This is in contrast to Theora, whose license has none of the same restrictions, whether or not the video is streamed over the internet.
Note: As I read this, it has nothing to do with the question of royalties themselves, but rather with the terms of use dictated by the actual license, royalty free or not.
Because "firing up [my] calculator" is necessary and sufficient to describe an action that has been commonplace for more than 30 years now. It's an unremarkable action, so any mention of specifics has to be deliberate. Maybe smug superiority wasn't the intended goal, but something was. Perhaps an attempt to self-identify as a 'cool' FLOSS user' or a hardcore nerd. But something.
For example:
"I drove to the recycling center and got in line behind the other cars" vs. "I drove my Prius to the recycling center and got in line behind the SUVs"
or
"I wiped up the spill with a paper towel and tossed it in the trash" vs. "I wiped up the spill with a recycled paper towel from Whole Foods and tossed it onto my compost heap"
Adding detail where none is needed is a deliberate act intended to convey a message.
I can see this with Pay Per View, because the consumer is paying a fixed fee to watch something, and they can put restrictions on how many people can view it. Too many people watching at a single house would directly cut into revenues.
No, that is what you were manipulated into believing. What really happened is the consumer paid a fixed fee to have something watchable on a screen *delivered to their house*. The number of people present is irrelevant.
You make an excellent point. Further, without anything else changing but the details of the brainwashing they allowed themselves to believe, I can easily imagine the same armchair apologists making the same kinds of arguments on behalf of the "public viewing" industry at risk of being destroyed by the people who want to buy their own copy to enjoy at home. "Oh the poor sportsbar owner who can't make a living because you went out and purchased a TV and your own beer to watch at home with your friends. We must preserve their exclusive rights if we want to enjoy sports bars - they need to make a living too and they can't if you are allowed to just go out and buy your own!".
The bar owner yields more cash when subjected to a shakedown, and has more at stake because their means of livelihood is involved. Otherwise, no difference.
Keep trying - you might find an example that's directly relevant. Contractual agreements are a different kind of transaction than purchase of goods or services. When you rent a property, it's abundantly clear what your obligations are (and that of the owner) and the exact terms of the agreement are examined by each party before finalizing it with signatures and such. The difference between purchasing and renting a property or good is plainly obvious to anyone who has done both.
In the type of transaction being discussed, there is little, if any discernible difference between a purchase involving transfer of ownership of a particular item (or the ability to receive 'entertainment' for a limited time) and the "magic" purchase that somehow resembles a rental or lease. In fact, purchases that are defended as the latter are blatantly advertised as the former ("Own yours [a DVD or CD] today!"). This deception is deliberate, because if a purchaser were made aware of the fact that they were actually 'only renting', they would not complete the purchase. Keep in mind also that there are plenty of examples of transactions involving *the same material* that are clearly not transfers of ownership (rental from Blockbuster, going to a theater, etc), so people aren't missing something because they are confused. Go to a store, pay money (without signing a contract), getting handed your purchase with a "here's your ! Enjoy!" and take possession. If someone takes it, they are stealing. If you don't want it any longer, you can sell it. It's yours. It's not rented. The fact that you might want to buy a big screen TV and some extra chairs and invite a bunch of people to watch should not matter one whit. Even if you did charge for drinks or even entry.
Good lord, it's depressing how completely corporations have people brainwashed.
you're using other peoples entertainment content to create a nicer place, which in turn creates you income.
No, you're using entertainment you *paid for* in a way that suits you. No different than buying a carpet to put on the floor to create a nicer place. That particular instantiation of the carpet design (which isn't yours) is yours by right of purchase. Nobody gets to tell you who can walk on it, admire it while doing whatever it is people are doing in the nice place. They can't even tell you that are not allowed to charge people admission to see the carpet (should you be able to convince enough people to do so). Just because the purchased item is labeled "entertainment content" does not mean it is magically different from any other item you can purchase*. The law as currently (mis)implemented may say so, but that doesn't mean the law is correct and shouldn't be changed. Stop making excuses for a practice that isn't even in your own best interests, or at least limit the degree of willing subjugation to yourself and stop trying to convince others to join you as you give up your rights.
* And don't start talking about how "it's licensed, not bought" either. Try to tell someone the carpet they bought is "licensed, not bought" and see if you can finish talking before they start laughing and throw you off of their "purchased, not licensed" property.
You're using 'government' rather selectively (maybe you mean the capitalized version of Government, which more typically refers to the political machinery of nations). A group of people governed by idiocy (or idiots) doesn't have to be a country or non-related to corporations to be called idiocracy. One could argue that this term describes the relationship between the NFL and sports fans quite accurately, even if they themselves don't think so.
I think you answered your own (implied) question in your post. People take measures to avoid being forcibly subjected to advertisement when they don't want to be, or when it's an inconvenience to them (I'm looking at you, unskippable DVD previews!). Watching ads willingly when desired is not inconsistent with this.
As for sports bars, they're a business encouraging a large number of willing viewers to watch someone else's advertising revenue supported content. Of course they should be compensated.
The following question appeared on a political science final exam in college (pertaining to American History):
"If all laws are just, were the Founding Fathers criminals?"
Understand that, and you understand the essential conundrum between respecting local laws and living according to principles. How corporations behave when faced with this says a lot about them and the people who run them.
Citation needed. Say it as authoritatively as you like, without proof it's just hearsay. "Somebody at Valve said so" isn't proof. A legal document, registered in the jurisdiction that Valve does business in stating that the company is obligated to ensure that this gets top priority in the face of all other creditor obligations etc. is about the only conclusive evidence I'd accept. Anything else is just promises to fuel rationalization and wishful thinking.
And... a patch? Written already that will make all Steam games past, present, and future runnable without the services? Seriously? No way I believe that they would have a single point of failure in their scheme that was so easily circumvented.
I guess they don't teach critical thinking in schools any longer.
And, more specifically, the best way to combat piracy is to realize you're not going to succeed and instead find a new business model that works. You'll notice that the bands who are highly profitable have figured something very important out - CD sales are not the road to riches - concert tours are where you make truck loads of money. The _experience_ of music is something people are willing to spend a LOT of money on. Listening to music just entices them to spend $200 a ticket to see the live performance on stage. Once more music people figure this out - once more music people figure out that the old way of becoming rich in the industry is dead - the better off everyone will be.
This will last until people can record binocular video and binaural surround audio of their surroundings using body mounted nano- cameras and microphones that aren't easily detectable (or until "personal experience capture for digital life archiving" is protected by law so 'life recording equipment' doesn't have to be hidden), and social crowdsourcing sites allow people to combine a montage of different perspectives from everyone in attendance so equipped into a nicely edited concert video. The latter hitting torrent sites will spell the end of "live concerts" as the scarcity-du-jour guaranteed to make truck loads of money. I guess "business model technology hopscotch" is a good short term strategy, but ultimately I'd like to just see business models develop that are based on an equitable and fair exchange rather than depend on artificial scarcity. Give people a good reason to pay and give them value when they do. This may not always translate into 'truckloads of money', but it might be a way to enable more people overall to make a good sustainable living creating music, art or whatever.
I must humbly and most respectfully disagree with the honorable gentle persons commenting on the subject broached earlier by "http" regarding the use of the "THIS!" meme during the course of a discussion.
Would "+1", "mod parent up", "Word", "I agree wholeheartedly", "Hear, hear!", "Preach brother, preach" or "The honorable swaniriversean makes a most compelling point" be stylistically more to your liking? A snippet framing the agreement in the proper context is an added bonus since it clearly indicates the subject of the agreement. Annoying as it may be to you personally, such utterances are useful in providing clarity when following along with the debate and trying to get a clear sense of where the points of consensus and disagreement lie. I personally find this to be a nice little communication technique.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it is. The trouble is that not going to the polls isn't exactly counted as a vote, is it?
All the people who made products you may or may not have in your house just want to stop by once a quarter to make sure they get paid for what they produce. You can't just expect them to do nothing and hope that you'll be nice and pay them. Those books you picked up at the "clearing out old stuff event" at the library? The authors deserve to get paid for what they produce. Representatives for Mr. King will be over shortly to conduct an audit. If you are found to be out of compliance, they will rip out all but the first chapter. You can use the 'downgraded' copy to decide if you want to make a full purchase.
On top of all that it's not like you want to release your code to the public right away anyway. As a scientist you're in competition with groups around the world to publish first. You describe in your paper the science you think you implemented, someone else who wants to verify your results gets to write a new chunk of code which they think is the same science and you compare. Giving out a scientists code for inspection means someone else will have a working software platform to publish papers based on your work, and that's not so good for you. For all the talk of research for the public good, ultimately your own good, of continuing to publish (to get paid) trumps a public need. That's a systematic problem, and when you're competing with a research group in brazil, and you're in canada their rules are different than yours, and so you keep things close to the chest.
Bullshit. If this kind of thinking is prevalent in the field you're familiar with/in, then it's an unhealthy field and probably isn't producing good science.
First, this "play it close to the chest so someone doesn't steal my stuff" isn't common in the scientific areas I'm familiar with (biochemistry, biophysics, chemistry, biomedical computing, bioinformatics). People may hold off on releasing info because it's not ready or because it's too new and untested, but rarely because somebody may steal it and beat them. When this behavior does happen, it's usually between bitter rivals and mostly viewed as unhealthy. In practice, preliminary results and work-in-progress see the light of day pretty early, whether in talks given as an invited speaker or as a presentation of work in progress at a conference or symposium. That's considered healthy, because it gives people a chance to talk about their work with their peers *before* it gets published so the work is that much better.
Second, how is software different from any other piece of lab equipment, reagent, tool or method? If it can be purchased, other folks already have it or are planning to, if it's any good. If you developed it in house, you should be discussing it with people as described above, because it might not be as good as you think. The strength of science is based on the free exchange of ideas, and that includes how it's done, not just the results.
Medieval alchemists were good at keeping secrets too. Compare how well their approach worked relative to the free exchange that characterizes the last several hundred years.
thanks for perpetuating the stereotype that your profession is full of arrogant assholes.
In my experience it's not a stereotype - it's true enough sometimes that exceptions are worth noting. :-)
The reality is that being an arrogant asshole isn't always a liability in science, and in many contexts may be an asset. For example, nice people don't call bullshit when they see it, even if they should - that would be impolite. But politeness doesn't result in better science, while a no-bullshit, no-compromise attitude often does. Some people can turn it off at the end of the day, many can't. They go home alone, but they still do good science.
It may not be as tall as Pike's Peak, but it's a more challenging road, IMHO. http://www.concierge.com/cntraveler/blogs/perrinpost/2007/08/this-car-climbe.html
Fuck. That. Shit.
http://bemasc.net/wordpress/2010/02/02/no-you-cant-do-that-with-h264/
Here is the lead paragraph:
A lot of commercial software comes with H.264 encoders and decoders, and some computers arrive with this software preinstalled. This leads a lot of people to believe that they can legally view and create H.264 videos for whatever purpose they like. Unfortunately for them, it ain’t so.
The article goes on to discuss the limitations on H.264 use in actual practice using examples of actual licenses. As I read it, the authorized software used to encode H.264 videos places strict limits on the use of the resulting video. This seems to be a problem not mentioned much in the context of royalty-free streaming of H.264 over the web, and infringement may actually be facilitated by the latter (by making these videos more ubiquitous).
This is in contrast to Theora, whose license has none of the same restrictions, whether or not the video is streamed over the internet.
Note: As I read this, it has nothing to do with the question of royalties themselves, but rather with the terms of use dictated by the actual license, royalty free or not.
For example:
"I drove to the recycling center and got in line behind the other cars" vs. "I drove my Prius to the recycling center and got in line behind the SUVs"
or
"I wiped up the spill with a paper towel and tossed it in the trash" vs. "I wiped up the spill with a recycled paper towel from Whole Foods and tossed it onto my compost heap"
Adding detail where none is needed is a deliberate act intended to convey a message.
Thank you. I was myself about to point out the rather "convenient" oversight. Who needs clear thinking when sensationalism is as stake?
I can see this with Pay Per View, because the consumer is paying a fixed fee to watch something, and they can put restrictions on how many people can view it. Too many people watching at a single house would directly cut into revenues.
No, that is what you were manipulated into believing. What really happened is the consumer paid a fixed fee to have something watchable on a screen *delivered to their house*. The number of people present is irrelevant.
Wow. A self-referential grammar cop. You, sir, are a true renaissance man! Bravo.
You make an excellent point. Further, without anything else changing but the details of the brainwashing they allowed themselves to believe, I can easily imagine the same armchair apologists making the same kinds of arguments on behalf of the "public viewing" industry at risk of being destroyed by the people who want to buy their own copy to enjoy at home. "Oh the poor sportsbar owner who can't make a living because you went out and purchased a TV and your own beer to watch at home with your friends. We must preserve their exclusive rights if we want to enjoy sports bars - they need to make a living too and they can't if you are allowed to just go out and buy your own!".
The bar owner yields more cash when subjected to a shakedown, and has more at stake because their means of livelihood is involved. Otherwise, no difference.
In the type of transaction being discussed, there is little, if any discernible difference between a purchase involving transfer of ownership of a particular item (or the ability to receive 'entertainment' for a limited time) and the "magic" purchase that somehow resembles a rental or lease. In fact, purchases that are defended as the latter are blatantly advertised as the former ("Own yours [a DVD or CD] today!"). This deception is deliberate, because if a purchaser were made aware of the fact that they were actually 'only renting', they would not complete the purchase. Keep in mind also that there are plenty of examples of transactions involving *the same material* that are clearly not transfers of ownership (rental from Blockbuster, going to a theater, etc), so people aren't missing something because they are confused. Go to a store, pay money (without signing a contract), getting handed your purchase with a "here's your ! Enjoy!" and take possession. If someone takes it, they are stealing. If you don't want it any longer, you can sell it. It's yours. It's not rented. The fact that you might want to buy a big screen TV and some extra chairs and invite a bunch of people to watch should not matter one whit. Even if you did charge for drinks or even entry.
you're using other peoples entertainment content to create a nicer place, which in turn creates you income.
No, you're using entertainment you *paid for* in a way that suits you. No different than buying a carpet to put on the floor to create a nicer place. That particular instantiation of the carpet design (which isn't yours) is yours by right of purchase. Nobody gets to tell you who can walk on it, admire it while doing whatever it is people are doing in the nice place. They can't even tell you that are not allowed to charge people admission to see the carpet (should you be able to convince enough people to do so). Just because the purchased item is labeled "entertainment content" does not mean it is magically different from any other item you can purchase*. The law as currently (mis)implemented may say so, but that doesn't mean the law is correct and shouldn't be changed. Stop making excuses for a practice that isn't even in your own best interests, or at least limit the degree of willing subjugation to yourself and stop trying to convince others to join you as you give up your rights.
* And don't start talking about how "it's licensed, not bought" either. Try to tell someone the carpet they bought is "licensed, not bought" and see if you can finish talking before they start laughing and throw you off of their "purchased, not licensed" property.
You're using 'government' rather selectively (maybe you mean the capitalized version of Government, which more typically refers to the political machinery of nations). A group of people governed by idiocy (or idiots) doesn't have to be a country or non-related to corporations to be called idiocracy. One could argue that this term describes the relationship between the NFL and sports fans quite accurately, even if they themselves don't think so.
I think you answered your own (implied) question in your post. People take measures to avoid being forcibly subjected to advertisement when they don't want to be, or when it's an inconvenience to them (I'm looking at you, unskippable DVD previews!). Watching ads willingly when desired is not inconsistent with this.
As for sports bars, they're a business encouraging a large number of willing viewers to watch someone else's advertising revenue supported content. Of course they should be compensated.
There. Fixed that for ya.
Frankly, I wouldn't watch even if the broadcast the game under Creative Commons. I have no interest in American Football at all.
I have no interest in your personal taste in sports at all. Perhaps you have a point more relevant to the discussion that you would care to share?
The following question appeared on a political science final exam in college (pertaining to American History):
"If all laws are just, were the Founding Fathers criminals?"
Understand that, and you understand the essential conundrum between respecting local laws and living according to principles. How corporations behave when faced with this says a lot about them and the people who run them.
Post of the day.
Bravo, sir, bravo.
Citation needed. Say it as authoritatively as you like, without proof it's just hearsay. "Somebody at Valve said so" isn't proof. A legal document, registered in the jurisdiction that Valve does business in stating that the company is obligated to ensure that this gets top priority in the face of all other creditor obligations etc. is about the only conclusive evidence I'd accept. Anything else is just promises to fuel rationalization and wishful thinking.
And ... a patch? Written already that will make all Steam games past, present, and future runnable without the services? Seriously? No way I believe that they would have a single point of failure in their scheme that was so easily circumvented.
I guess they don't teach critical thinking in schools any longer.
I agree with your opening statement, but ...
And, more specifically, the best way to combat piracy is to realize you're not going to succeed and instead find a new business model that works. You'll notice that the bands who are highly profitable have figured something very important out - CD sales are not the road to riches - concert tours are where you make truck loads of money. The _experience_ of music is something people are willing to spend a LOT of money on. Listening to music just entices them to spend $200 a ticket to see the live performance on stage. Once more music people figure this out - once more music people figure out that the old way of becoming rich in the industry is dead - the better off everyone will be.
This will last until people can record binocular video and binaural surround audio of their surroundings using body mounted nano- cameras and microphones that aren't easily detectable (or until "personal experience capture for digital life archiving" is protected by law so 'life recording equipment' doesn't have to be hidden), and social crowdsourcing sites allow people to combine a montage of different perspectives from everyone in attendance so equipped into a nicely edited concert video. The latter hitting torrent sites will spell the end of "live concerts" as the scarcity-du-jour guaranteed to make truck loads of money. I guess "business model technology hopscotch" is a good short term strategy, but ultimately I'd like to just see business models develop that are based on an equitable and fair exchange rather than depend on artificial scarcity. Give people a good reason to pay and give them value when they do. This may not always translate into 'truckloads of money', but it might be a way to enable more people overall to make a good sustainable living creating music, art or whatever.
I must humbly and most respectfully disagree with the honorable gentle persons commenting on the subject broached earlier by "http" regarding the use of the "THIS!" meme during the course of a discussion.
Or, if I may be so brash: !THIS
Would "+1", "mod parent up", "Word", "I agree wholeheartedly", "Hear, hear!", "Preach brother, preach" or "The honorable swaniriversean makes a most compelling point" be stylistically more to your liking? A snippet framing the agreement in the proper context is an added bonus since it clearly indicates the subject of the agreement. Annoying as it may be to you personally, such utterances are useful in providing clarity when following along with the debate and trying to get a clear sense of where the points of consensus and disagreement lie. I personally find this to be a nice little communication technique.