For the sake of expediancy, I will grant your premise that without record companies, popular music would not exist. (And let me state for the record that I do not agree with this premise. See the other posts in this thread for arguments against this premise. )
Record companies as we kow them will soon be irrelevant.
In the past, the costs of studio time, marketing, creating the physical records, tapes, and CDs, and distributing them presented a barrier artists could not breach. (Record companies used this to rape artists via copyright assignment to the record company. You want to talk priracy? Here it is in its origninal form.)
Thanks to techonolical advances, these costs have plummeted.
This is happening in a variety of media, not just the recording business.
Look at the Blair Witch Project. Or consider/. How many readers do you think there would be for print version?
The record companies are scared shitless about losing their grip on the music business.
I expect that there will always be middle men. So 'record companies' will no doubt survive in some form. And I expect that most musicians won't want to be bothered with marketing, the details of distribution, and so forth. But that doesn't matter.
The key point is that soon if not already, artists will be able to 'make it' without the help of a record company. And that shatters the current business model.
It is all about control. The record companies are right to fight this technology. Because for them, it is the end of life as they know it.
If you look at the actual sales, have they gone down over the last years? No, they've increased (despite the record industry's hard attempts at scaring people away with crap like Britney Spears).
I know that they have increased. But is there a direct link between unauthorized copying and CD sales?
As pointed out with respect to the Napster Hurts Album Sales? thread, correlation is not causation. The fact that CD sales have gone up may be a side effect of a booming economy. Or it may be because of try before you buy. I don't know.
This argument implies that there is hard evidence to prove that 'piracy' leads to decreased sales.
It wasn't meant to imply anything. It was simply a question based on the argument used in the post I was replying to. I don't know the effect unauthorized copying has, positive or negative.
The argument works both ways. It's not as obvious as you would think.
Agreed, I don't think it is obvious at all. I phrased it the way I did because my experience and anecdotal evidence is such that it does increase sales.
Ms Love said"Stealing our copyright provisions in the dead of night when no one is looking is piracy."
Under an amendment to copyright law passed last year all sound recordings are now classified as "works for hire". Thus, the recordings become the property of record companies forever. Prior to this, artists could reclaim the copyright after thirty-five years.
For the RIAA it is all about control. Artists and consumers be dammed.
This amendment was passed without hearings or testimony. As you might imagine, artists are pissed. USA Today had a blurb on it in the May 25th edition noting that Sheryl Crowe was testifying before Congress today.
Looks like the RIAA was really looking out for artists rights this time.
Sure, but they'd be fools if they did. They're enjoying a lot more eyeballs than they would have otherwise, even with the mirrored text.
The author and the editorial staff may be happy that their work is reaching a larger audience. I doubt Feed's advertisers feel the same way.
They may also get new readers. I'd never even heard of them before this.
This is the 'Napster generates sales' defence. I've often seen it used, but never seen it verified. Anecdotal evidence aside, is there any hard evidence that 'piracy' leads to increased sales and/or readers?
And while were at it, lets get rid of textbooks. Students should be made to discover everything on their own.
No notebooks either. If you haven't memorized it you haven't learned it.
Ah hell, let's just do away with written language altogether.
And why are we using higher math anyway? It's just cheats and tricks. Students should learn Euclid's axioms and the Peano postulates and be forced to derive everything else. (Division, blah! who needs division when you've got subtraction!)
I know the post was just a troll, but this argument against calculators is used. And it is fundementally flawed.
Technology changes things. Why don't we use slide rules any more? Why don't we use Roman numerals to calculate with any more? Why don't we use abaci? Why have we given up on straight edges and compasses?
Because we found better tools. And the use of these tools has not made us 'stupid'. Our skill sets have changed (we use algebra and calculas to solve what we once used geometry to solve; we use notebooks where we once used memory tricks).
The tool is not the problem. Use of calculators in schools does not cause math scores to go down. Poor use of calculators in schools does.
If students can't add, then the teaching methodology is flawed. And it needs to be changed. Those calling for banning calculators (just like those calling for banning Napster) don't understand the problem. And are probably just looking for a quick fix.
As for the 'computers replace humans' scenarios, I think case is somewhat overstated. The ability to spell or to use correct grammer does not equal thinking. Written language is arbitrary. And it changes (try reading Chaucer in the original 'English'). If my computer can deal with the grammer and spelling then it allows me to concentrate on the ideas I'm trying to communicate. I do the thinking, it does the spelling. And that's fine with me.
It's the same with calculators. I still have to determine the problem to solve. And choose the tool(s) to solve it with. The calculator just handles the 'mechanical' (i.e. non-thinking') part.
Folks, this "new strategic alliance" is about getting turning your TV into the prime Internet connection for the home. IN DIRECT COMPETITION WITH CABLE ACCESS. You might call this stupid, but they're going for the market that would use a set top box.
Once the Media One merger is complete, AT&T will be the largest cable operator in the US.
So you're claiming that they are trying to compete with themselves?
You've never purchased software by downloading it?
Actually, no, I don't think I have. But I don't buy very much software -- almost all the software I use is free software. (And no, this doesn't mean warez. I used to do the warez thing when I was a lot younger, but I don't any more.)
I use both commercial and free software. As for free software, I download some and I get some on CD. I am assuming that you download free software. (The problem with using a system like this to have a conversation is that I can't get any immediate feedback. In a real time conversation, we could correct each other and prevent misunderstandings. Oh well.) By your definition below, unless you pay for it or exchange something of value, free software is not a product. I point this out to show how tricky it is to distinguish a product from a service when taking about bits.
As for paying for intangible goods, do you have cable tv? Ever used pay per view?...
But I'm not buying the music or other content in these cases. I'm paying for a service. In the case of cable TV (I have it; or rather it's in my wife's name and I pay the bills;-) ), I'm paying for the service of having audio/video content streamed into my house over a wire. I'm not paying for the actual content.
But if it wasn't for the content, you wouldn't be supporting your wife's cable habit. I think a strong argument could be made that the main reason that anyone pays for cable is the content.
No, I've never used Pay Per View,...
Me neither.
Where do you draw the line? Is/. a service or a product? Is it something different?
Slashdot is clearly not a product -- I haven't paid any money or exchanged anything of value for it. I'd say it's a service.
The basic distinction is whether, at the end of the transaction, anything has changed ownership.
Things are starting to get tricky here. If I give you a copy of a file, and I still have a copy, and you do not exchange anything of value for it, is it a product?
Considering/. again, is the NY Times a product? If you buy the paper version there is definitely a transfer of tangible goods, so by your definition it is a product. Is the web version a product? It is the same info, just in a different format. You don't exchange anything for it (if you want to argue that you need a login so you have given identity, then consider the Boston Globe, no login required).
This is the crux of my argument. That for bits, the current distinction between product and service is a result of current technology, and is not intrinsic to the bits. Bits are packaged in CDs and DVDs because that is the best we could do with the technology we had. With computer and communication technology, all that will change.
Take music CDs as an example. I buy music in the CD format because it is a convenient, high quality, portable format. But if every CD ever made was available for instant access over the net (wired and wireless) I would sign up today (this is what I was referring to as a "pay per listen" service. I was envisioning a monthly access fee.). That is, I would not 'own' any music because I wouldn't have to. The only reason I have CDs and albums and tapes and MP3s and DVDs and video tapes and books and magazines and software is because it is the only way I can get the content I want.
Now, we have some work to do to make this happen. And most of that will be in getting the media companies to provide it in a consumer friendly manner. Wether it be for music, books, video, what ever. No adds. No DJs (I agree about FM radio sucking. The only radio I listen to is in the car (no CD player yet) and a couple of shows on public radio, Echoes and Starsend, space music.) No consumer tracking. Strong privacy.
(Have you read Stephenson's The Diamond Age? (You must have; I think it's required reading for all slashdot users....) Every manufactured item in that society is built by nanotechnology.
Yep, although I preferred Snowcrash and I'm reading Cryptonomicon now. So far so good. In The Diamond Age MCs do for atoms what computer and communication technology does for bits. Why own anything when you can get a copy instantly. But we have to make sure there are no adds. (Given that people buy clothing from beer and cigarette companies, essentially paying for the priveledge of being a billboard, I don't have much hope.)
Sorry for the paranoia. Something to think about, though. Maybe I'll at least give you a good laugh....
I enjoyed it. A well thought out serious reply on/. is a rare thing. Thanks.
In fact, I'm surprised they haven't tried it with CDs. Probably too much legal precedent.
I remember reading about a new type of CD that was similar to DIVX in that it could only play on certain machines. Alas I have no reference to this story. Anybody else remember this?
Speaking of which, I went looking for the original story on/., but when I went to review the older items, only the last twenty stories were available. It used to be that every older story was available. What happened?
I won't pay for intangible goods.[0] If I buy music, or software, I expect to get something I can hold in my hands (at least a CD that can be used as a backup in case my hard drive dies).
You've never purchased software by downloading it? I prefer this method, as I get what I want when I need it. I would prefer to buy music, books, videos this way as well.
I also won't accept "keyed media" (media that can only be played in one specific player, or on one specific computer). That's a recipe for disaster.
For me, it depends on the key. I would not accept a system where a file is keyed to one machine. I would accept a system was keyed to me, and I could use it on any machine I owned or might own in the future. So the machines would somehow have to be keyed to me as well. And the system would have to allow machines to be keyed to multiple users (i.e. the family stereo). And allow for limited use on other machines not keyed to me. That is, I could play a recording on a friends machine, but could not save it on that device.
As for paying for intangable goods, do you have cable tv? Ever used pay per view? Ever go to a concert? Ever go to the movies? Information is intangable. But our technology forced it to be tangable. The digital revolution is changing that. You mentioned a distinction between goods and services. Where do you draw the line? Is/. a service or a product? Is it something different?
Would you pay for a 'pay per listen' service is it charged a fixed monthly fee, ala cable tv or internet access, and allowed unlimited listening to CD quality music anywhere anytime, but didn't allow copying? I might based on the price and the selection.
Digital distribution of information is easy. Doing it wrong, (DIVX, Napster), is also easy. Doing it right, by respecting the rights of the artist and the needs of the user hasn't really been tried yet, no doubt do to the efforts of clueless middle men.
I've seen plenty of posts about what people don't want. And plenty that treat the issue as one sided. Very few discuss a system that address the needs of all stakeholders. I've made some suggestions in this post and in others in this thread. Anybody else have any ideas?
In the same spirit what do/. readers want in a digital music system?
What can we do to help design a system that addresses the needs of all stakeholders (listeners, artists, others?)?
The system I'd like to see would allow me to download high quality copies of music files. Play them on a variety of devices including computers, portable players, stereo systems, car systems, etc. I have no problem paying a reasonable amount for these files (I pay for almost all of my music today). I would prefer a one time payment vs. a subscription model. I would also like a try before you buy system. This could be X number of plays or expiration date driven.
I want the 'sharability' inherent in CDs, tapes, and records. That is, I want to be able to play my files on someone else's system. Perhaps the file would be keyed to an owner and each playback system would have to match that owner (with multiple owners for shared devices, i.e. the family stereo). Playing it on a friends system could use the try before you buy mechanism or there could be a guest mode that allowed a limited number of plays (relative not absolute).
So there's a start. What else would we need and or want?
The radio analogy doesn't quite work. A better analogy would be to taping songs off the radio.
Also, don't radio stations have to pay a fee for each song that's played?
This does have interesting implications for internet 'radio' stations.
Steve M
How do Humans Play Chess?
on
Solving Chess?
·
· Score: 2
As for advancing chess, what human and computer players actually do are so different from each other that it is hard to imagine one learning from another.
I have seen this claim made on numerous occations. But I have not seen the explanation behind the claim.
Granted we know how computers play chess. Do we truely know how humans play chess? We know what humans say they do when the play chess. But do we really know what goes on in ones brain during a game?
However, I cannot let stand uncontested the implication that the rule of law should never be challenged. The law is but an approximation of fairness and justice, and it is those things to which we must first bear allegance. Yes, we should be commited to approximating fairness and justice, thus should be committed to the rule of law. But let us never forget the law is a means to a more important end, and where it fails that end, it is the law that should yield.
Good point. I agree completely.
Rosa Parks was participating in civil disobediance. She was not infringing on anyone else's rights. Her rights were being denied.
In the examples I gave, I tried to focus on those instances where someone assumes they know what is best for someone else, against that person's wishes.
That said, I don't know when breaking a law would be justified, but I agree that there are times when it is.
But in cases where there is a legal way to bring about change (voting, via the courts, peaceful protest, etc.) vigilantism is to be avoided. This is a complex issue. The really important ones usually are. Unfortunately, as your parting line notes, instead of reasoned discussion we get flame wars, whether it be on Crossfire or/..
Let me start by saying that I think that the book is a good thing. I think that the way it was done is a bad thing.
I agree that this is a story that must be told. I think that it is extemely important that "freaks and geeks" not be persecuted for being different.
There was a right way to do it. Unfortunately, Andover et. al. didn't choose that way.
In reading the comments in this thread I've seen a number that express the idea "The issue is too important to worry about the legal issues." or "We have a moral imperative that supercedes any other issues."
This is the same argument used to murder abortion doctors. This is the same argument that is being used to keep a young Cuban boy from his father. This is the same argument used to destroy research projects and careers in the name of animal rights. This is the same argument used by the religious right against gays. It is used everytime someone 'knows' what is right for everyone else.
And this is the same argument used by the Pinkerton company to run roughshod over the rights of kids whose only "crime" is that they are different.
The outrage I have with Andover et. al. is not that they put together this book or even the way they did it. My problem is the attitude they are now displaying after the issues were raised. "We know best." "We are above the law." "We don't have to stand by what is written on every/. page."
For better or worse we (at least in the US) live by the rule of law, not by the rule of force (in theory at least). You may not like the fact that abortions are permitted, or gays have rights, or that animals are used in experiments, or that kids who are different get persecuted. But you do not have the right to take matters into your own hands and ignore the rights of others.
I find CmdrTaco's, Jahn Katz's, and Andover's actions both unfortunate and disturbing.
Are Replay or Tivo "smart" enough to adjust to this so as to not miss "taping" any of the show?
ReplayTV is not. It goes by it's program listings. Thus it misses the beginings of shows that start early or the end of shows that start late. It also doesn't know when sporting events go long and offset the rest of the schedule. This creates to problems. If you're recording the game you don't record the overtime. If you're recording a program after the game you only get part of it.
It records based only on the start and end times in the program guide. And there is no mechanism for manually entering a start and end time for a recording.
Both ReplayTV and TIVO use a phone connection to download TV listings.
I have a ReplayTV. It dials into the ReplayTV servers every night to update a weeks worth of TV listings. Without those TV listings, you cannot program the device to record TV shows.
Without the listings I could use the box to watch live TV, and still take advantage of pause, replay, rewind (how do you rewind a hard disk?)and such. I can also record shows by pressing the record button when the show starts.
But without being able to program the device for future recording it become much less useful to me. Thus not plugging in the phone line pretty much defeats the purpose of having a ReplayTV.
Yeah! And I want to know which people on my block are homosexuals. And which are atheists. And which are communists. And which are muslims. And which have had an abortion. And which have AIDS. And which have ever tried pot. And which have ever rented a porno flick. And which have...
I want to know every sercret you have.
//sarcasim off
As long as people persecute other people for differences in beliefs and lifestyles, I want privacy. As long as I am not breaking the law (assumption for this discussion, the laws are just) I should be left alone if I so choose.
THIS IS MY LIFE. I SHOULD BE ABLE TO CHOOSE WHAT I WANT TO SHARE AND WHO I WANT TO SHARE IT WITH.
Learn some history. SteveM's Law: If privacy info can be used against you it will be.
It wasn't safe to be a communist in the US in the 50's, even though it was legal. It wasn't safe to be a Japanese-American in the US during WWII, even though it was legal. In some places in the US today it is not safe to be gay (for example, you'll get thrown out of the armed services) even though it is legal. It isn't always safe to be an abortion doctor in the US, even though it is legal. I'm sure there are other examples in the US and elsewhere.
You closed with the open source arguement, I'll counter with the anonymous coward one.
There are currently two trends with respect to media companies, consolidation and fragmentation.
AOL-TW is just one of a number of mergers. Yet at the same time we see the barriers to entery droping./. was started and run by a couple of guys in college. Digital video is lowering the cost of moving making (think Blair Witch). Internet radio has lower start up and running costs than traditional radio, and no frequency constraints. MP3s and such allow musicians to cut out the RIAA middle men.
Speaking of the RIAA, as/. readers are well aware, they and the MPAA are fighting very hard to maintain the status quo.
This combination of fragmentation and consoidation can be seen in a number of areas. Newspaper reading continues to decline while web surfing is increasing. Network TV viewing is down, cable viewing is up. Yet TV networks are seen as valuable properties. And newspaper companies are investing in other newspapers, while providing free web access. A curious allocation of resources.
It will be interesting to see how these two trends play out. I'm routing for fragmentation and choice.
That said the problems of consolidation are real. Here in the US (and I suspect in most democracies) public opinion does matter. And the fact that AOL-TW controls and/or can influence where people get their info frightens me.
In addition to the problems associated with the large media conglomerates controling the access to and the content of information I see two other problems.
The first has to do with self censorship by reporters and journalists. While big the big names will be able to resist pressure to toe the company line, it could be a different story for the unknowns with no reputation to protect them. Consider a reporter just out of journalism school, with a family to support, a mortage to pay off, student loans, etc. Writing or even pursuing a story unflattering to the corporate parent could be seen as career suicide. So they don't, rationalizing that their new baby is more important then a story. Soon these stories never even reach concious awareness.
No one told this reporter not to persue these stories. But perceived self interest leads to self censorship.
The second problem has to do with perceived conflicts of interest. If Time has a story about AOL, would you believe it? (How about if Microsft commissions a poll about Windows?) If it is flattering then the fix is in. If it is unflattering it's just Time trying to show its independence. Either way the motives are suspect.
Finally these mega mergers lead to a very bland media landscape, since as noted by Roblimo they are going after mass markets. Has anyone noticed how similar the news shows on the networks are. Not just the nightly news but the news magazines and the morning shows as well. How many mob shows are on tap now that The Sopranos is a hit? How many Mars movies are out or in production? And where are all the fresh new musical acts? As an information and entertainment consumer I am very much pro choice.
I've rambled on long enough, and I'll leave it to someone else to explore the problems of a fragmented media landscape.
When you talk about synaptic links, are you talking about actual ganglion growth? It seems like that would be too slow a process to account for a normally functioning human memory.
In studies done on rats it was shown that those in enriched environments, i.e. those where there was more to learn (and thus commit to memory) had 20% more dendritic branching (i.e. nueral connections). These studies were done by Mark Rosenzweig et. al. at UC Berkeley in the 1960's. Unfortunately I do not have the exact references (I'm using secondary sources).
Other studies have focused on long term potentiation. Here it appears that structural changes occur in already existing synapses. For example, it has been suggested that the number of neurotraninmitter release and/or acceptance sites is increased.
It thus appears that memory formation via structural changes in the brain is in fact what happens. Although it is still an active area of research.
The well known experiments done by Wilder Penfield showing that direct electrical stimulation of the brain results in memory recall would seem to confirm that accessing memory is an electro-chemical process.
Thus we see that storing is not just an "electro-chemical" impulse. And that memory creation is different from memory use, although memory use does keep the connections strong.
I appears to take on the order of 15 minutes for something to go from short term to long term memory. I don't know if this is long enough for the structural changes needed to occur.
The storing function has to do with creating the synaptic links that encode a memory. It involves moving info into short term memory and then into long term (aka permanent) memory.
Accessing memory has to do with activating the synaptic links that represent a memory.
Creating the synapitic links and accessing them are two related but different processes.
Calling computer chips "memory" is just a bad metaphor. No point in making hard arguments based on it.
Au contriare. It is a perfect analogy for the point I was trying to make. I was using memory as the ability to store information. Human memory is fuzzy, computer memory is exact. Flawed, not flawed.
Religion appears to be about the real word. But it is not. That is not to say it isn't very real and very important to people in the real world and thus very much apart of their world. But dropping balls from a tower gives repeatable results. Saying a prayer does not (except maybve for a null result).
Science has built in the ability, perhaps even the requirement, to correct itself. And I'll say it again, science is performed by humans and humans have flaws. Thus those flaws show up in the human endeavor called science. Never the less, the self correcting aspect of science works.
Religion doesn't self correct. It's use of dogma makes it fight change. Religions do change, but those changes come from without, not from within.
Religions do recognize human fallibility. But it is not the fallibility of humans I am discussing here. It is the failability of the science and religion. Science recognizes that it does not have all the answers and thus is not complete or perfect. One certainly can't say that about religion (except maybe Zen).
In fact, Science as an institution is founded on the belief that man is perfectible.
Say what? Science is based on the belief that the universe is explainable. It has nothing to do with perfecting man. Isn't that what religions try to do?
The science proponents say "Whatever is wrong must have a cause and we can find that cause and prevent the wrong from happening".
Where do you come up with this stuff? Scientists look at a phenomena and assume it has a rational explanation. They then try to discover the explanation. It has nothing to do with wrong or right.
... It's just not as deep in its understanding of human nature as the religious (Judeo-Christian or any other) view.
Any institution that thinks abstinence is the best form of birth control has a pretty shallow understanding of human nature. I'll take science over religion every time. (Agian, this is not about individual practitioners it is about the institutions.)
The brian is a massively complex system. No argument from me. But it is not necessarily the most optimally designed system.
Evolutin is a tinkerer, not an engineer. Evolution settles for what gets the job done, which is not always what gets the job done best.
...when we can make an airplane that weighs an ounce, maneuvers like a helicopter, grows, learns, adapts, feeds itself, procreates, avoids dangers and obstacles, and can do any 5 of the 1,000 things a living bird does...
This misses the point of the analogy. In designing and building planes we are not building birds. We are building flying machines. Likewise, when developing an AI we are not building human brains.
The brain has wetware devoted to things other than thinking. Muscular control for example. This is not needed for an AI.
Anybody who thinks that a sentient non-human consciousness can be engineered out of whole cloth needs to read up on the scale of the problem.
I have.
I am not arguing that the best way to develop an AI is top down. I am arguing that we don't know the best way to engineer a AI and until we do we should persue all possible avenues.
I am also arguing that the complexity of the brain may be an artifact of the way it was created and all of the tasks it performs. And that it may be possible to design a more efficient and simpler system that focuses only on thinking.
nature builds things to be as efficient as possible--this is an observation all zoologists would agree with.
This is incorrect. Mother nature is not an engineer. She is a tinker in the tradition of Rube Goldberg. Evolution is pragmatic, and settles for any solution. In general it does not find the most optimal solution. Examples, the panda's thumb, not as efficient as a primates thumb; the hemoglobin analog in octipi is not as efficient as true hemoglobin.
As for the peacocks tail the cost versus benefit ratio is stable not optimal.
The human brain is complex, but how much of that complexity is because it was evolved in a piece meal fashion? It was not designed to be optimal. It was blindly evolved to work at each step of the way.
Extra complexity would only have been selected out if there was a evolutionary path that allowed this. Each organism that exists is specified by a particular gentic sequence. Over time, the evlotionary paths an organism can take dwindle as it becomes more specialized. Thus there may not be a simple or probable set of mutations that would allow the extra complexity in the human brain to be evolved out.
Looking at it from the outside, we could see the redundant and overly complex portions and engineer simpler solutions.
except for a few very famous expert systems, top-down AI is a failure
Where are all the succesful bottom up AI projects? Leonardo DaVinci designed flying machines some 500 years before man successfully took to the skies (via powered flight, thus not counting lighter than air vehicles). The main reason he didn't succeed in building a machine himself was hardware. He didn't have a power source good enough. The Wright brothers barely made it off the ground. A number of researchers have made the same argument for AI. It's only 50 years old and most of the failures you speak of were researchers working on PDP and Vax systems. I'm impressed they made any progress at all.
...achieve the same result using bottom-up methods which we know will work?
How do we know this? We do not know if we can create an AI at all, much less any methods guaranteed to succeed. (Unless you are claiming man via evolution as an existance proof for bottom up methods. Then I would agree. But I don't see 3.8 billion years of evolution as an efficient method to develop an AI.)
a pigeon and a plane may both fly, but nobody ever had to design a pigeon... and i would argue that a pigeon is infinitely more perfectly 'engineered' than a 747 and it is also much, much more complex
This both misses the point of my analogy and supports my argument for engineering simpler designs than evolution.
The point of the analogy is that we can build machines that minic what nature has done, not that we are making birds. Pigeons do many things other than fly, but they are mostly irrelevent. Brains do other things than think, but for AI those things are irrelevent and can be engineered out.
I stand by my statement that it is too soon to tell what method, if any, will lead to success in developing machines that think.
Slashdot Mirror
For the sake of expediancy, I will grant your premise that without record companies, popular music would not exist. (And let me state for the record that I do not agree with this premise. See the other posts in this thread for arguments against this premise. )
Record companies as we kow them will soon be irrelevant.
In the past, the costs of studio time, marketing, creating the physical records, tapes, and CDs, and distributing them presented a barrier artists could not breach. (Record companies used this to rape artists via copyright assignment to the record company. You want to talk priracy? Here it is in its origninal form.)
Thanks to techonolical advances, these costs have plummeted.
This is happening in a variety of media, not just the recording business.
Look at the Blair Witch Project. Or consider /. How many readers do you think there would be for print version?
The record companies are scared shitless about losing their grip on the music business.
I expect that there will always be middle men. So 'record companies' will no doubt survive in some form. And I expect that most musicians won't want to be bothered with marketing, the details of distribution, and so forth. But that doesn't matter.
The key point is that soon if not already, artists will be able to 'make it' without the help of a record company. And that shatters the current business model.
It is all about control. The record companies are right to fight this technology. Because for them, it is the end of life as they know it.
Steve M
If you look at the actual sales, have they gone down over the last years? No, they've increased (despite the record industry's hard attempts at scaring people away with crap like Britney Spears).
I know that they have increased. But is there a direct link between unauthorized copying and CD sales?
As pointed out with respect to the Napster Hurts Album Sales? thread, correlation is not causation. The fact that CD sales have gone up may be a side effect of a booming economy. Or it may be because of try before you buy. I don't know.
Steve M
This argument implies that there is hard evidence to prove that 'piracy' leads to decreased sales.
It wasn't meant to imply anything. It was simply a question based on the argument used in the post I was replying to. I don't know the effect unauthorized copying has, positive or negative.
The argument works both ways. It's not as obvious as you would think.
Agreed, I don't think it is obvious at all. I phrased it the way I did because my experience and anecdotal evidence is such that it does increase sales.
But anecdotal evidence is all I have.
Steve M
Ms Love said"Stealing our copyright provisions in the dead of night when no one is looking is piracy."
Under an amendment to copyright law passed last year all sound recordings are now classified as "works for hire". Thus, the recordings become the property of record companies forever. Prior to this, artists could reclaim the copyright after thirty-five years.
For the RIAA it is all about control. Artists and consumers be dammed.
This amendment was passed without hearings or testimony. As you might imagine, artists are pissed. USA Today had a blurb on it in the May 25th edition noting that Sheryl Crowe was testifying before Congress today.
Looks like the RIAA was really looking out for artists rights this time.
Steve M
Sure, but they'd be fools if they did. They're enjoying a lot more eyeballs than they would have otherwise, even with the mirrored text.
The author and the editorial staff may be happy that their work is reaching a larger audience. I doubt Feed's advertisers feel the same way.
They may also get new readers. I'd never even heard of them before this.
This is the 'Napster generates sales' defence. I've often seen it used, but never seen it verified. Anecdotal evidence aside, is there any hard evidence that 'piracy' leads to increased sales and/or readers?
Steve m
And while were at it, lets get rid of textbooks. Students should be made to discover everything on their own.
No notebooks either. If you haven't memorized it you haven't learned it.
Ah hell, let's just do away with written language altogether.
And why are we using higher math anyway? It's just cheats and tricks. Students should learn Euclid's axioms and the Peano postulates and be forced to derive everything else. (Division, blah! who needs division when you've got subtraction!)
I know the post was just a troll, but this argument against calculators is used. And it is fundementally flawed.
Technology changes things. Why don't we use slide rules any more? Why don't we use Roman numerals to calculate with any more? Why don't we use abaci? Why have we given up on straight edges and compasses?
Because we found better tools. And the use of these tools has not made us 'stupid'. Our skill sets have changed (we use algebra and calculas to solve what we once used geometry to solve; we use notebooks where we once used memory tricks).
The tool is not the problem. Use of calculators in schools does not cause math scores to go down. Poor use of calculators in schools does.
If students can't add, then the teaching methodology is flawed. And it needs to be changed. Those calling for banning calculators (just like those calling for banning Napster) don't understand the problem. And are probably just looking for a quick fix.
As for the 'computers replace humans' scenarios, I think case is somewhat overstated. The ability to spell or to use correct grammer does not equal thinking. Written language is arbitrary. And it changes (try reading Chaucer in the original 'English'). If my computer can deal with the grammer and spelling then it allows me to concentrate on the ideas I'm trying to communicate. I do the thinking, it does the spelling. And that's fine with me.
It's the same with calculators. I still have to determine the problem to solve. And choose the tool(s) to solve it with. The calculator just handles the 'mechanical' (i.e. non-thinking') part.
Steve M
Folks, this "new strategic alliance" is about getting turning your TV into the prime Internet connection for the home. IN DIRECT COMPETITION WITH CABLE ACCESS. You might call this stupid, but they're going for the market that would use a set top box.
Once the Media One merger is complete, AT&T will be the largest cable operator in the US.
So you're claiming that they are trying to compete with themselves?
Steve M
You've never purchased software by downloading it?
Actually, no, I don't think I have. But I don't buy very much software -- almost all the software I use is free software. (And no, this doesn't mean warez. I used to do the warez thing when I was a lot younger, but I don't any more.)
I use both commercial and free software. As for free software, I download some and I get some on CD. I am assuming that you download free software. (The problem with using a system like this to have a conversation is that I can't get any immediate feedback. In a real time conversation, we could correct each other and prevent misunderstandings. Oh well.) By your definition below, unless you pay for it or exchange something of value, free software is not a product. I point this out to show how tricky it is to distinguish a product from a service when taking about bits.
As for paying for intangible goods, do you have cable tv? Ever used pay per view? ...
But I'm not buying the music or other content in these cases. I'm paying for a service. In the case of cable TV (I have it; or rather it's in my wife's name and I pay the bills ;-) ), I'm paying for the service of having audio/video content streamed into my house over a wire. I'm not paying for the actual content.
But if it wasn't for the content, you wouldn't be supporting your wife's cable habit. I think a strong argument could be made that the main reason that anyone pays for cable is the content.
No, I've never used Pay Per View, ...
Me neither.
Where do you draw the line? Is /. a service or a product? Is it something different?
Slashdot is clearly not a product -- I haven't paid any money or exchanged anything of value for it. I'd say it's a service.
The basic distinction is whether, at the end of the transaction, anything has changed ownership.
Things are starting to get tricky here. If I give you a copy of a file, and I still have a copy, and you do not exchange anything of value for it, is it a product?
Considering /. again, is the NY Times a product? If you buy the paper version there is definitely a transfer of tangible goods, so by your definition it is a product. Is the web version a product? It is the same info, just in a different format. You don't exchange anything for it (if you want to argue that you need a login so you have given identity, then consider the Boston Globe, no login required).
This is the crux of my argument. That for bits, the current distinction between product and service is a result of current technology, and is not intrinsic to the bits. Bits are packaged in CDs and DVDs because that is the best we could do with the technology we had. With computer and communication technology, all that will change.
Take music CDs as an example. I buy music in the CD format because it is a convenient, high quality, portable format. But if every CD ever made was available for instant access over the net (wired and wireless) I would sign up today (this is what I was referring to as a "pay per listen" service. I was envisioning a monthly access fee.). That is, I would not 'own' any music because I wouldn't have to. The only reason I have CDs and albums and tapes and MP3s and DVDs and video tapes and books and magazines and software is because it is the only way I can get the content I want.
Now, we have some work to do to make this happen. And most of that will be in getting the media companies to provide it in a consumer friendly manner. Wether it be for music, books, video, what ever. No adds. No DJs (I agree about FM radio sucking. The only radio I listen to is in the car (no CD player yet) and a couple of shows on public radio, Echoes and Starsend, space music.) No consumer tracking. Strong privacy.
(Have you read Stephenson's The Diamond Age? (You must have; I think it's required reading for all slashdot users....) Every manufactured item in that society is built by nanotechnology.
Yep, although I preferred Snowcrash and I'm reading Cryptonomicon now. So far so good. In The Diamond Age MCs do for atoms what computer and communication technology does for bits. Why own anything when you can get a copy instantly. But we have to make sure there are no adds. (Given that people buy clothing from beer and cigarette companies, essentially paying for the priveledge of being a billboard, I don't have much hope.)
Sorry for the paranoia. Something to think about, though. Maybe I'll at least give you a good laugh....
I enjoyed it. A well thought out serious reply on /. is a rare thing. Thanks.
In order to do some *real* data damage, one would have to destroy back-ups, ...
And while it is dormant on your hard drive, it trashes your backups as they're being made. Then after a couple of months it trashes your hard drive.
Have you checked your backups lately?
Steve M
In fact, I'm surprised they haven't tried it with CDs. Probably too much legal precedent.
I remember reading about a new type of CD that was similar to DIVX in that it could only play on certain machines. Alas I have no reference to this story. Anybody else remember this?
Speaking of which, I went looking for the original story on /., but when I went to review the older items, only the last twenty stories were available. It used to be that every older story was available. What happened?
Steve M
I won't pay for intangible goods.[0] If I buy music, or software, I expect to get something I can hold in my hands (at least a CD that can be used as a backup in case my hard drive dies).
You've never purchased software by downloading it? I prefer this method, as I get what I want when I need it. I would prefer to buy music, books, videos this way as well.
I also won't accept "keyed media" (media that can only be played in one specific player, or on one specific computer). That's a recipe for disaster.
For me, it depends on the key. I would not accept a system where a file is keyed to one machine. I would accept a system was keyed to me, and I could use it on any machine I owned or might own in the future. So the machines would somehow have to be keyed to me as well. And the system would have to allow machines to be keyed to multiple users (i.e. the family stereo). And allow for limited use on other machines not keyed to me. That is, I could play a recording on a friends machine, but could not save it on that device.
As for paying for intangable goods, do you have cable tv? Ever used pay per view? Ever go to a concert? Ever go to the movies? Information is intangable. But our technology forced it to be tangable. The digital revolution is changing that. You mentioned a distinction between goods and services. Where do you draw the line? Is /. a service or a product? Is it something different?
Would you pay for a 'pay per listen' service is it charged a fixed monthly fee, ala cable tv or internet access, and allowed unlimited listening to CD quality music anywhere anytime, but didn't allow copying? I might based on the price and the selection.
Digital distribution of information is easy. Doing it wrong, (DIVX, Napster), is also easy. Doing it right, by respecting the rights of the artist and the needs of the user hasn't really been tried yet, no doubt do to the efforts of clueless middle men.
I've seen plenty of posts about what people don't want. And plenty that treat the issue as one sided. Very few discuss a system that address the needs of all stakeholders. I've made some suggestions in this post and in others in this thread. Anybody else have any ideas?
Steve M
In the same spirit what do /. readers want in a digital music system?
What can we do to help design a system that addresses the needs of all stakeholders (listeners, artists, others?)?
The system I'd like to see would allow me to download high quality copies of music files. Play them on a variety of devices including computers, portable players, stereo systems, car systems, etc. I have no problem paying a reasonable amount for these files (I pay for almost all of my music today). I would prefer a one time payment vs. a subscription model. I would also like a try before you buy system. This could be X number of plays or expiration date driven.
I want the 'sharability' inherent in CDs, tapes, and records. That is, I want to be able to play my files on someone else's system. Perhaps the file would be keyed to an owner and each playback system would have to match that owner (with multiple owners for shared devices, i.e. the family stereo). Playing it on a friends system could use the try before you buy mechanism or there could be a guest mode that allowed a limited number of plays (relative not absolute).
So there's a start. What else would we need and or want?
Steve M
The radio analogy doesn't quite work. A better analogy would be to taping songs off the radio.
Also, don't radio stations have to pay a fee for each song that's played?
This does have interesting implications for internet 'radio' stations.
Steve M
As for advancing chess, what human and computer players actually do are so different from each other that it is hard to imagine one learning from another.
I have seen this claim made on numerous occations. But I have not seen the explanation behind the claim.
Granted we know how computers play chess. Do we truely know how humans play chess? We know what humans say they do when the play chess. But do we really know what goes on in ones brain during a game?
Steve M
However, I cannot let stand uncontested the implication that the rule of law should never be challenged. The law is but an approximation of fairness and justice, and it is those things to which we must first bear allegance. Yes, we should be commited to approximating fairness and justice, thus should be committed to the rule of law. But let us never forget the law is a means to a more important end, and where it fails that end, it is the law that should yield.
Good point. I agree completely.
Rosa Parks was participating in civil disobediance. She was not infringing on anyone else's rights. Her rights were being denied.
In the examples I gave, I tried to focus on those instances where someone assumes they know what is best for someone else, against that person's wishes.
That said, I don't know when breaking a law would be justified, but I agree that there are times when it is.
But in cases where there is a legal way to bring about change (voting, via the courts, peaceful protest, etc.) vigilantism is to be avoided. This is a complex issue. The really important ones usually are. Unfortunately, as your parting line notes, instead of reasoned discussion we get flame wars, whether it be on Crossfire or /..
Steve M
Let me start by saying that I think that the book is a good thing. I think that the way it was done is a bad thing.
/. page."
I agree that this is a story that must be told. I think that it is extemely important that "freaks and geeks" not be persecuted for being different.
There was a right way to do it. Unfortunately, Andover et. al. didn't choose that way.
In reading the comments in this thread I've seen a number that express the idea "The issue is too important to worry about the legal issues." or "We have a moral imperative that supercedes any other issues."
This is the same argument used to murder abortion doctors. This is the same argument that is being used to keep a young Cuban boy from his father. This is the same argument used to destroy research projects and careers in the name of animal rights. This is the same argument used by the religious right against gays. It is used everytime someone 'knows' what is right for everyone else.
And this is the same argument used by the Pinkerton company to run roughshod over the rights of kids whose only "crime" is that they are different.
The outrage I have with Andover et. al. is not that they put together this book or even the way they did it. My problem is the attitude they are now displaying after the issues were raised. "We know best." "We are above the law." "We don't have to stand by what is written on every
For better or worse we (at least in the US) live by the rule of law, not by the rule of force (in theory at least). You may not like the fact that abortions are permitted, or gays have rights, or that animals are used in experiments, or that kids who are different get persecuted. But you do not have the right to take matters into your own hands and ignore the rights of others.
I find CmdrTaco's, Jahn Katz's, and Andover's actions both unfortunate and disturbing.
Steve M
Are Replay or Tivo "smart" enough to adjust to this so as to not miss "taping" any of the show?
ReplayTV is not. It goes by it's program listings. Thus it misses the beginings of shows that start early or the end of shows that start late. It also doesn't know when sporting events go long and offset the rest of the schedule. This creates to problems. If you're recording the game you don't record the overtime. If you're recording a program after the game you only get part of it.
It records based only on the start and end times in the program guide. And there is no mechanism for manually entering a start and end time for a recording.
Steve M
Both ReplayTV and TIVO use a phone connection to download TV listings.
I have a ReplayTV. It dials into the ReplayTV servers every night to update a weeks worth of TV listings. Without those TV listings, you cannot program the device to record TV shows.
Without the listings I could use the box to watch live TV, and still take advantage of pause, replay, rewind (how do you rewind a hard disk?)and such. I can also record shows by pressing the record button when the show starts.
But without being able to program the device for future recording it become much less useful to me. Thus not plugging in the phone line pretty much defeats the purpose of having a ReplayTV.
Steve M
Yeah! And I want to know which people on my block are homosexuals. And which are atheists. And which are communists. And which are muslims. And which have had an abortion. And which have AIDS. And which have ever tried pot. And which have ever rented a porno flick. And which have ...
I want to know every sercret you have.
//sarcasim off
As long as people persecute other people for differences in beliefs and lifestyles, I want privacy. As long as I am not breaking the law (assumption for this discussion, the laws are just) I should be left alone if I so choose.
THIS IS MY LIFE. I SHOULD BE ABLE TO CHOOSE WHAT I WANT TO SHARE AND WHO I WANT TO SHARE IT WITH.
Learn some history. SteveM's Law: If privacy info can be used against you it will be.
It wasn't safe to be a communist in the US in the 50's, even though it was legal. It wasn't safe to be a Japanese-American in the US during WWII, even though it was legal. In some places in the US today it is not safe to be gay (for example, you'll get thrown out of the armed services) even though it is legal. It isn't always safe to be an abortion doctor in the US, even though it is legal. I'm sure there are other examples in the US and elsewhere.
You closed with the open source arguement, I'll counter with the anonymous coward one.
Steve M
There are currently two trends with respect to media companies, consolidation and fragmentation.
AOL-TW is just one of a number of mergers. Yet at the same time we see the barriers to entery droping. /. was started and run by a couple of guys in college. Digital video is lowering the cost of moving making (think Blair Witch). Internet radio has lower start up and running costs than traditional radio, and no frequency constraints. MP3s and such allow musicians to cut out the RIAA middle men.
Speaking of the RIAA, as /. readers are well aware, they and the MPAA are fighting very hard to maintain the status quo.
This combination of fragmentation and consoidation can be seen in a number of areas. Newspaper reading continues to decline while web surfing is increasing. Network TV viewing is down, cable viewing is up. Yet TV networks are seen as valuable properties. And newspaper companies are investing in other newspapers, while providing free web access. A curious allocation of resources.
It will be interesting to see how these two trends play out. I'm routing for fragmentation and choice.
That said the problems of consolidation are real. Here in the US (and I suspect in most democracies) public opinion does matter. And the fact that AOL-TW controls and/or can influence where people get their info frightens me.
In addition to the problems associated with the large media conglomerates controling the access to and the content of information I see two other problems.
The first has to do with self censorship by reporters and journalists. While big the big names will be able to resist pressure to toe the company line, it could be a different story for the unknowns with no reputation to protect them. Consider a reporter just out of journalism school, with a family to support, a mortage to pay off, student loans, etc. Writing or even pursuing a story unflattering to the corporate parent could be seen as career suicide. So they don't, rationalizing that their new baby is more important then a story. Soon these stories never even reach concious awareness.
No one told this reporter not to persue these stories. But perceived self interest leads to self censorship.
The second problem has to do with perceived conflicts of interest. If Time has a story about AOL, would you believe it? (How about if Microsft commissions a poll about Windows?) If it is flattering then the fix is in. If it is unflattering it's just Time trying to show its independence. Either way the motives are suspect.
Finally these mega mergers lead to a very bland media landscape, since as noted by Roblimo they are going after mass markets. Has anyone noticed how similar the news shows on the networks are. Not just the nightly news but the news magazines and the morning shows as well. How many mob shows are on tap now that The Sopranos is a hit? How many Mars movies are out or in production? And where are all the fresh new musical acts? As an information and entertainment consumer I am very much pro choice.
I've rambled on long enough, and I'll leave it to someone else to explore the problems of a fragmented media landscape.
Steve M
When you talk about synaptic links, are you talking about actual ganglion growth? It seems like that would be too slow a process to account for a normally functioning human memory.
In studies done on rats it was shown that those in enriched environments, i.e. those where there was more to learn (and thus commit to memory) had 20% more dendritic branching (i.e. nueral connections). These studies were done by Mark Rosenzweig et. al. at UC Berkeley in the 1960's. Unfortunately I do not have the exact references (I'm using secondary sources).
Other studies have focused on long term potentiation. Here it appears that structural changes occur in already existing synapses. For example, it has been suggested that the number of neurotraninmitter release and/or acceptance sites is increased.
It thus appears that memory formation via structural changes in the brain is in fact what happens. Although it is still an active area of research.
The well known experiments done by Wilder Penfield showing that direct electrical stimulation of the brain results in memory recall would seem to confirm that accessing memory is an electro-chemical process.
Thus we see that storing is not just an "electro-chemical" impulse. And that memory creation is different from memory use, although memory use does keep the connections strong.
I appears to take on the order of 15 minutes for something to go from short term to long term memory. I don't know if this is long enough for the structural changes needed to occur.
Steve M
The storing function has to do with creating the synaptic links that encode a memory. It involves moving info into short term memory and then into long term (aka permanent) memory.
Accessing memory has to do with activating the synaptic links that represent a memory.
Creating the synapitic links and accessing them are two related but different processes.
Calling computer chips "memory" is just a bad metaphor. No point in making hard arguments based on it.
Au contriare. It is a perfect analogy for the point I was trying to make. I was using memory as the ability to store information. Human memory is fuzzy, computer memory is exact. Flawed, not flawed.
Religion appears to be about the real word. But it is not. That is not to say it isn't very real and very important to people in the real world and thus very much apart of their world. But dropping balls from a tower gives repeatable results. Saying a prayer does not (except maybve for a null result).
Science has built in the ability, perhaps even the requirement, to correct itself. And I'll say it again, science is performed by humans and humans have flaws. Thus those flaws show up in the human endeavor called science. Never the less, the self correcting aspect of science works.
Religion doesn't self correct. It's use of dogma makes it fight change. Religions do change, but those changes come from without, not from within.
Religions do recognize human fallibility. But it is not the fallibility of humans I am discussing here. It is the failability of the science and religion. Science recognizes that it does not have all the answers and thus is not complete or perfect. One certainly can't say that about religion (except maybe Zen).
In fact, Science as an institution is founded on the belief that man is perfectible.
Say what? Science is based on the belief that the universe is explainable. It has nothing to do with perfecting man. Isn't that what religions try to do?
The science proponents say "Whatever is wrong must have a cause and we can find that cause and prevent the wrong from happening".
Where do you come up with this stuff? Scientists look at a phenomena and assume it has a rational explanation. They then try to discover the explanation. It has nothing to do with wrong or right.
Any institution that thinks abstinence is the best form of birth control has a pretty shallow understanding of human nature. I'll take science over religion every time. (Agian, this is not about individual practitioners it is about the institutions.)
Steve M
Anne,
The brian is a massively complex system. No argument from me. But it is not necessarily the most optimally designed system.
Evolutin is a tinkerer, not an engineer. Evolution settles for what gets the job done, which is not always what gets the job done best.
This misses the point of the analogy. In designing and building planes we are not building birds. We are building flying machines. Likewise, when developing an AI we are not building human brains.
The brain has wetware devoted to things other than thinking. Muscular control for example. This is not needed for an AI.
Anybody who thinks that a sentient non-human consciousness can be engineered out of whole cloth needs to read up on the scale of the problem.
I have.
I am not arguing that the best way to develop an AI is top down. I am arguing that we don't know the best way to engineer a AI and until we do we should persue all possible avenues.
I am also arguing that the complexity of the brain may be an artifact of the way it was created and all of the tasks it performs. And that it may be possible to design a more efficient and simpler system that focuses only on thinking.
Steve M
nature builds things to be as efficient as possible--this is an observation all zoologists would agree with.
This is incorrect. Mother nature is not an engineer. She is a tinker in the tradition of Rube Goldberg. Evolution is pragmatic, and settles for any solution. In general it does not find the most optimal solution. Examples, the panda's thumb, not as efficient as a primates thumb; the hemoglobin analog in octipi is not as efficient as true hemoglobin.
As for the peacocks tail the cost versus benefit ratio is stable not optimal.
The human brain is complex, but how much of that complexity is because it was evolved in a piece meal fashion? It was not designed to be optimal. It was blindly evolved to work at each step of the way.
Extra complexity would only have been selected out if there was a evolutionary path that allowed this. Each organism that exists is specified by a particular gentic sequence. Over time, the evlotionary paths an organism can take dwindle as it becomes more specialized. Thus there may not be a simple or probable set of mutations that would allow the extra complexity in the human brain to be evolved out.
Looking at it from the outside, we could see the redundant and overly complex portions and engineer simpler solutions.
except for a few very famous expert systems, top-down AI is a failure
Where are all the succesful bottom up AI projects? Leonardo DaVinci designed flying machines some 500 years before man successfully took to the skies (via powered flight, thus not counting lighter than air vehicles). The main reason he didn't succeed in building a machine himself was hardware. He didn't have a power source good enough. The Wright brothers barely made it off the ground. A number of researchers have made the same argument for AI. It's only 50 years old and most of the failures you speak of were researchers working on PDP and Vax systems. I'm impressed they made any progress at all.
How do we know this? We do not know if we can create an AI at all, much less any methods guaranteed to succeed. (Unless you are claiming man via evolution as an existance proof for bottom up methods. Then I would agree. But I don't see 3.8 billion years of evolution as an efficient method to develop an AI.)
a pigeon and a plane may both fly, but nobody ever had to design a pigeon... and i would argue that a pigeon is infinitely more perfectly 'engineered' than a 747 and it is also much, much more complex
This both misses the point of my analogy and supports my argument for engineering simpler designs than evolution.
The point of the analogy is that we can build machines that minic what nature has done, not that we are making birds. Pigeons do many things other than fly, but they are mostly irrelevent. Brains do other things than think, but for AI those things are irrelevent and can be engineered out.
I stand by my statement that it is too soon to tell what method, if any, will lead to success in developing machines that think.
Steve M