I don't know where you live, but I happen to live in Europe. Politicians here are just as corrupt here as everywhere else - if not even more so. We do not, after all, have the world's magnifying lens on us - the US does.
The only way to make a change so that the political system represents common will, it is to take it down to more local levels. Which the US was good at until the power shifted from the sovereign states to media and the federal/national level.
"don't argue against me. i'm not imposing my ridiculous philosophy on you. you are not resisting my words. you are not arguing with me, you are not resisting me
you are resisting reality. i'm simply the messenger."?
Soon enough, the Internet WILL BE the "physical space". I'm not aiming at something sci-fi here, I'm simply saying that soon enough, enough things in society will be based solely on the Net that there will be no big difference between whether a thing exists in "reality" or just "artificially".
The banking world is an example. At the rate we are going, we will soon not have currency. You will have a card that will contain your "money". The "real" thing "money", has become the "unreal" thing "binary code". It doesn't matter if we can see it or not - the influence it has on our lives is what matters. And what matters? Well, labor matters. Effort matters. And these things must be rewarded. Through effort being translated into money. And these things will only be properly rewarded if there is a patent-system/copyright-system for the Net.
No. You can not copy these things "effortlessly". You need a computer, an OS, an ISP, a government to plant cables, electricity, etc. However, just because you can copy something "effortlessly" does not mean that the entity creating the thing you are so readily copying hasn't put money/effort into the product. And thus if future investment is to take place, that entity must reap a reward.
I consider you, the user, and the other end of the Net, another user, to be the two ends. The rest is made by "middle-men". Forgive me but I still don't get your definition of a "middle-man".
I agree that society evolves and we must evolve with it. However, I do not agree that we should simply let this enfold in a random manner. Future employment, future research, future *anything* might be dependent on the Net. It is not just about you downloading your free mp3s in a holy war against the RIAA.
China wants cheap access to technology that would be expensive if they enforced western patent laws. It is not a case of "common sense prevails", it is Chinese politicians favoring themselves and the companies they control.
Larger and larger parts of our lives are becoming a part of the Internet. *Enforced* patent laws are a *requirement* for a functional society. Without them, people have no incentive to create new things because anarchy would rip the benefits from them anyhow.
I don't really understand who you mean by the "man in the middle", but if you mean record companies, head hunters and so forth - they should receive money. To delete all "the men in the middle" would be to say to an aspiring artist: "Well, go sing your R&B on the streets and offer CDs that you've burnt at home." It will be just like aspiring painters in the 16:th century! (aka bums)
Eventually some form of DRM *must* come, and it will come, or too large a part of society (of the *world* in this case) will run rampant and unchecked. As society inevitably transforms more and more into cyberspace, a world without DRM (or something equivalent) would be like slowly entering into the Middle Ages all over again.
Why? Because there is no one-world court or patent enforcer. So, instead we create an automatic enforcer in the machines we build and lean our society on.
I know machines are stupid and can't tell if you're breaking the law or not, but I can see no better long-run alternative. A one-world court would surely be a *lot* worse.
However I'm open to new suggestions. Does anyone know of a way to truly enforce future (aka cyber) patents without DRM?
If someone tells you: "We haven't got a better football player for 20 years!", you think: "Mkay, so there *was* a better one before that!", no? If there were no one better, the time mentioned would be longer. It's only logical.
If you do not know when thermometers were invented, and do not know when satellites were invented... For what reason would you think in another way? It's an incorrect way to write a statement in the first place - because it is misleading. A more correct way to express this would be: "We have the highest temperature yet measured." or "It is the biggest chunk of ice broken loose we have observed with our satellites."
Yes, I am aware that the satellite part says "largest event in 30 years", the above is just an example. I think that can be forgiven though - don't you?
I can see your point. Markets that are monopolized usually cripples technological growth. And growth of GDP/capita (the phenomena that made the US more comfortable to live in than Somalia) is solely dependent on technological progress in the long run.
The Chinese have lax patent laws because it makes their economy better off. One of the main reasons Asia has begun to rise out of poverty at a blazing speed is because there is already higher technology invented. They just have to adapt it. Now they do so at minimum costs. Is this bad? It might be bad for America - but I think the increase in welfare in Asia is worth the decrease in the *growth* of welfare (because there has been no decrease of welfare in the US) in America.
However, an All Open Source model doesn't encourage technological growth. Why? Because it is free. Technological research costs a lot of money. Not anyone can come up with something like Bluray or whatever. You need educated people, factories, etc etc. It's the same with software. If all software would suddenly become open source there would be no incentive to create new things, because nobody could be guaranteed to get their investment back and compensation for the risk they took when investing. As you say, there would be a few die-hard fans who'll create software just for the heck of it. But most of us would like to work with something that keeps food on our table and also keeps our life as happy and luxurious as possible.
Technology is about money. Without the promise of rewards in the future, firms will not invest in research. If firms will stop investing in research, our GDP growth will get crippled and finally stop growing. This means that we are no longer climbing up towards something better. This especially applies to stuff in the IT-section, since many believe that it is the growth of technology in this business that is currently lifting growth rates higher - up to the levels that existed in the 1960:s.
I think open source software will always be a second-hand alternative, pushing commercial companies into innovating more. Which is good. But I do not think the open source model is the solution for all software. It will always be the free vinegar that is sweeter than expensive sugar, simply because there is no economic power funding more advanced technological breakthroughs in the open source model.
And as for Sony's Bluray technique.. If people won't buy it, Sony will think twice about researching again. So will Microsoft. So will Apple. So will Plextor. So will everyone else. If it stops becoming profitable to create new things, firms will stop, and technological progress (along with GDP/capita growth) will cripple. So what's the next step - to insure that technological investment continues to pay off? Well, it is of course TRUSTED COMPUTING! It's ingenious! A firm will invent a new technology and be absolutely sure that a new technology invented by another firm will not snatch its profits. (eg. buying a DRM Vista-PC will not work with a Bluray player, only with a - perhaps worse/older player - W32ray.) Trusted computing is probably not so good for consumers (who are stinking wealthy anyways:)), and it could insure a continued fast technological growth - which is leading us to a very convenient society.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know where you live, but I happen to live in Europe.
Politicians here are just as corrupt here as everywhere else - if not even more so. We do not, after all, have the world's magnifying lens on us - the US does.
The only way to make a change so that the political system represents common will, it is to take it down to more local levels. Which the US was good at until the power shifted from the sovereign states to media and the federal/national level.
"adapt or die"?
"don't argue against me. i'm not imposing my ridiculous philosophy on you. you are not resisting my words. you are not arguing with me, you are not resisting me
you are resisting reality. i'm simply the messenger."?
Ever thought of starting a cult? (~_^)
No, perhaps I did not make myself clear.
Soon enough, the Internet WILL BE the "physical space". I'm not aiming at something sci-fi here, I'm simply saying that soon enough, enough things in society will be based solely on the Net that there will be no big difference between whether a thing exists in "reality" or just "artificially".
The banking world is an example.
At the rate we are going, we will soon not have currency. You will have a card that will contain your "money".
The "real" thing "money", has become the "unreal" thing "binary code". It doesn't matter if we can see it or not - the influence it has on our lives is what matters.
And what matters? Well, labor matters. Effort matters.
And these things must be rewarded. Through effort being translated into money.
And these things will only be properly rewarded if there is a patent-system/copyright-system for the Net.
No. You can not copy these things "effortlessly". You need a computer, an OS, an ISP, a government to plant cables, electricity, etc.
However, just because you can copy something "effortlessly" does not mean that the entity creating the thing you are so readily copying hasn't put money/effort into the product. And thus if future investment is to take place, that entity must reap a reward.
I consider you, the user, and the other end of the Net, another user, to be the two ends. The rest is made by "middle-men". Forgive me but I still don't get your definition of a "middle-man".
I agree that society evolves and we must evolve with it.
However, I do not agree that we should simply let this enfold in a random manner.
Future employment, future research, future *anything* might be dependent on the Net.
It is not just about you downloading your free mp3s in a holy war against the RIAA.
China wants cheap access to technology that would be expensive if they enforced western patent laws.
It is not a case of "common sense prevails", it is Chinese politicians favoring themselves and the companies they control.
Larger and larger parts of our lives are becoming a part of the Internet. *Enforced* patent laws are a *requirement* for a functional society.
Without them, people have no incentive to create new things because anarchy would rip the benefits from them anyhow.
I don't really understand who you mean by the "man in the middle", but if you mean record companies, head hunters and so forth - they should receive money.
To delete all "the men in the middle" would be to say to an aspiring artist: "Well, go sing your R&B on the streets and offer CDs that you've burnt at home." It will be just like aspiring painters in the 16:th century! (aka bums)
Eventually some form of DRM *must* come, and it will come, or too large a part of society (of the *world* in this case) will run rampant and unchecked. As society inevitably transforms more and more into cyberspace, a world without DRM (or something equivalent) would be like slowly entering into the Middle Ages all over again.
Why?
Because there is no one-world court or patent enforcer. So, instead we create an automatic enforcer in the machines we build and lean our society on.
I know machines are stupid and can't tell if you're breaking the law or not, but I can see no better long-run alternative.
A one-world court would surely be a *lot* worse.
However I'm open to new suggestions.
Does anyone know of a way to truly enforce future (aka cyber) patents without DRM?
I think you are being unfair.
If someone tells you: "We haven't got a better football player for 20 years!", you think: "Mkay, so there *was* a better one before that!", no?
If there were no one better, the time mentioned would be longer.
It's only logical.
If you do not know when thermometers were invented, and do not know when satellites were invented... For what reason would you think in another way?
It's an incorrect way to write a statement in the first place - because it is misleading.
A more correct way to express this would be: "We have the highest temperature yet measured." or "It is the biggest chunk of ice broken loose we have observed with our satellites."
Yes, I am aware that the satellite part says "largest event in 30 years", the above is just an example.
I think that can be forgiven though - don't you?
I can see your point. Markets that are monopolized usually cripples technological growth.
:)), and it could insure a continued fast technological growth - which is leading us to a very convenient society.
And growth of GDP/capita (the phenomena that made the US more comfortable to live in than Somalia) is solely dependent on technological progress in the long run.
The Chinese have lax patent laws because it makes their economy better off. One of the main reasons Asia has begun to rise out of poverty at a blazing speed is because there is already higher technology invented. They just have to adapt it. Now they do so at minimum costs. Is this bad?
It might be bad for America - but I think the increase in welfare in Asia is worth the decrease in the *growth* of welfare (because there has been no decrease of welfare in the US) in America.
However, an All Open Source model doesn't encourage technological growth.
Why? Because it is free.
Technological research costs a lot of money. Not anyone can come up with something like Bluray or whatever. You need educated people, factories, etc etc.
It's the same with software. If all software would suddenly become open source there would be no incentive to create new things, because nobody could be guaranteed to get their investment back and compensation for the risk they took when investing.
As you say, there would be a few die-hard fans who'll create software just for the heck of it. But most of us would like to work with something that keeps food on our table and also keeps our life as happy and luxurious as possible.
Technology is about money. Without the promise of rewards in the future, firms will not invest in research.
If firms will stop investing in research, our GDP growth will get crippled and finally stop growing. This means that we are no longer climbing up towards something better.
This especially applies to stuff in the IT-section, since many believe that it is the growth of technology in this business that is currently lifting growth rates higher - up to the levels that existed in the 1960:s.
I think open source software will always be a second-hand alternative, pushing commercial companies into innovating more. Which is good.
But I do not think the open source model is the solution for all software.
It will always be the free vinegar that is sweeter than expensive sugar, simply because there is no economic power funding more advanced technological breakthroughs in the open source model.
And as for Sony's Bluray technique.. If people won't buy it, Sony will think twice about researching again. So will Microsoft. So will Apple. So will Plextor. So will everyone else.
If it stops becoming profitable to create new things, firms will stop, and technological progress (along with GDP/capita growth) will cripple.
So what's the next step - to insure that technological investment continues to pay off?
Well, it is of course TRUSTED COMPUTING! It's ingenious! A firm will invent a new technology and be absolutely sure that a new technology invented by another firm will not snatch its profits. (eg. buying a DRM Vista-PC will not work with a Bluray player, only with a - perhaps worse/older player - W32ray.)
Trusted computing is probably not so good for consumers (who are stinking wealthy anyways
These are my, somewhat off-topic, thoughts.