A huge range of physical phones can run java j2me based software without needing to determine device configurations etc. Sun says there are about 2.5 Billion j2me/midp enabled handsets out there.
Unfortunately the various carriers then balkanized this 'code once run everywhere' capability in order to try to capture cashflow from developers (independent testing. certification, and signing anyone?) and customers (all the many app stores).
Can you provide a link to substantiate your claim? I had trouble finding anything definitive.
Also for everyone's reference here is a more complete quote of Jefferson:
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.
Ever notice how there was never one part of the map overlapping another? At any point there was always only ever the floor and the ceiling - at various levels, and able to raise/lower (lifts/doors anyone?). In that important sense it was 2D; a 2D map 'extruded' as a special case into 3D - not an arbitrary collection of 3D geometry. Oh and the sprites, they were bill-boarded 2D also.
I read the summary as them finding a way to create a p2p network of 'customers' (clients who pay to be in your p2p network where you deliver paid content) and protecting yourself from the 'customers' who 'collude' (e.g. hacked client s/w?) with non paying client s/w to allow non paying customers to get the content. I don't think it's about subverting an existing network, it's about protecting a network from subversion. If so then the techniques could presumably be used for other purposes, poisoning surveillance perhaps.
Make minimal assumptions of the phone capabilities.
Don't rely on 'external' certificate / cert providers etc, roll your own.
Don't rely on the device libraries, you cannot afford to trust even the phone.
Phone app to include some kind of cert to authenticate itself to the service (at least make an effort).
ssl based coms
http or sms transport
some kind of distributed multiple redundant backend; tor-ish and resistant to dns spoofing
certificate based authentication of the servers to the client
structure social network/email/bbs style systems over that underlying safe communication channel.
Ensure the system and legals are structured so that breaking into it to read the clear text comes under DMCA 'circumvention of technical measures to control access to copyright material' - about the most draconian laws there are.
If the phone had a real preemptive time sharing OS and an appropriately restricted API (enforced time/space/cpu quota, only screen, touch, and sound access) then it would be a trivial exercise to know a prog was 'safe'. At the moment they have a broad API and Apple's idea of safe and your might well not be the same (location data anyone? what exactly is the app going to do with the network access it's asking for...).
It's very complex for people to know what they could take from a work like Glimpses of an Unfamiliar Japan, at best the publishers over broad claim has a chilling effect at worst it might indeed be copyfraud.
It would be good for the public if the copyright notices called out exactly what they were claiming, a footer on every page would be fine and do-able. In the commonly claimed case of adding prefaces etc if would be very easy.
It's better for publishers to make broad vague claims. The exclusionary effect of the claims are supported by the huge penalties for infringement. Conversely the cost of over claiming seems small/unlikely to be called out - publishers can always 'clarify away' their over-claim if it comes to the crunch.
Great idea! a public DD of copyfraud instances would be very useful.
It would give everyone something to point to to show the difference between infringement and theft. If people could add themselves to the affected list for a particular instance we'd know which instances might be vulnerable to action. If it was wikified so discussion of theft/legitimate claims was public it would be a great educational tool. It might provide a chilling effect on the fraudsters.
A couple of clicks at http://www.booksinmyphone.com/ or it's mobile site and you can get some book apps running in just about any phone.
The main stumbling blocks are that it's only really 'click to install' if you have internet access and the carriers have not crippled your phone to try to extract more $ from you. Those aside I had a fine reading experience on my four year old phone.
For a lot of MMOs time IS money and so the game designers use XP to ration the content (areas, capabilities, classes, etc) and extend playing time to reap more $$$. The game design is all all about placing barriers to content access - this is an incentive for users to generate content that avoids the barriers.
It seems like you cannot avoid a red-queen race (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen) unless you change the underlying incentives. I've no idea how or what you would be left with after...
I agree that anything large enough to be a 'real' worry will be obvious and DMCA taken down in short order - but that argument also holds for music and video and so far I'm not aware of anyone who has stepped up to try to take a direct cut from a transaction like that. Actually I guess there are some analogous music selling sites, they could be predictors for what will happen in this case.
I also agree that anything small 'the publishers' 'should not worry about' - but *IAA will sue you for 9 songs...
copyright is designed to grow the public domain ('...promote the progress of science and useful arts...')
by providing incentives for the creation of new works ('...by securing the creators monopoly on copying...')
that will then pass to the public domain ('...for a limited time...').
i.e. it's purpose is to grow the public domain, the rest is just mechanism and a choice about how to trade off public good against private good.
The copyrighteous act like a kid who is happy to take the pocket money but not happy to do the chores. They employ Orwellian newspeak by referring to the whole balanced copyright trade-off as 'their property'. They focus only on the protected monopoly and do everything in their power to extend their monopoly duration (even for already created works, no incentive is big enough to change the past) and stop works falling into the public domain.
"(no fees for each app or update uploaded)" - not so as far as I know.
Ovi is requiring each app be "Java Verified" ( http://www.javaverified.com/ ), which requires third party testing on each 'class' of phone at a cost to the developer of around $150. So if you wanted to cover all Nokia's models it will cost you more than $1000 per app to get it certified as 'uploadable' (I cannot figure out exactly how many 'classes' / 'lead devices' there are). Any change or update to the app requires re certification.
firstly it's likely to be abused - as demonstrated by the failure of the copyrighteous to use the existing laws correctly. Secondly it reverses the onus of proof and removes even due process - which makes the abuse much more potent and the chilling effect on legitimate activity that much more powerful.
The people pushing these laws want to be sure they are the only conduit by which any (even perfectly legal) content can be distributed. We all know how well monopolies work out - why make it easier for the incumbents to maintain and extend theirs?
I really hope it's not the case that results can be rejected due to the lack of a mechanism to explain them.
Darwin had no mechanism to back his theory of 'origin of species by natural selection'. The mechanisms people had theorized at the time were not really compatible with Darwin's ideas. It wasn't till Mendel's work was appreciated that people had a viable mechanism for the inheritance that fit with Darwin's evolutionary theory.
There is always the 'vicarious infringement':
'Vicarious infringement occurs where someone has a direct financial interest in the infringing actions being committed by another and has the ability to control it, even if they do not know that the infringement is taking place and do not directly take part in it.'
or 'contributory infringement ':
'Contributory infringement occurs where someone knows that infringing activity is taking place and either induces it, causes it, or materially contributes to it.'
(http://www.quizlaw.com/copyrights/what_is_vicarious_infringement.php)
these arguments would center on the question of text-to-speech as 'format shifting' (not okay in the UK?) or some kind of infringement.
I'd start here http://www.squeakland.org/ the environment is based on smalltalk 80 and is pretty pure OO, so even though it looks like a toy they will 'get their mind right'.
On the surface it has a fantastic drag'n'drop tile based scripting layer that allows kids to quickly get toy and demo things working - building both familiarity with concepts, confidence, and interest. This http://www.squeakland.org/school/drive_a_car/html/Drivecar12.html jumps into instructions for a 5 minute draw a car and write the program to bind it to a drawn steering wheel. You can quickly progress to programs with sensors doing track following. I've used it to make flocking games (like herding cows etc) for the amusement of my kids.
It is intended that you can drop under the scripting and start using the full OO smalltalk (http://www.squeak.com) classes, inheritence, coding while you debug while you run. OS integration, OpenGL bindings, links to DBs, multimedia, a whole host of good stuff.
The idea is to give them something it's easy o come to grips with but that is OO, open, and as deep as you want to go.
I find my cell phone makes a great super portable, super cheap (prepaid) e-reader. You'd think the small screen would be an issue, but the author's language quickly takes over. My phone seems happy to install apps so with a few clicks on a website like www.booksinmyphone.com I can get a book wirelessly - like a Kindle that is so small you don't realize you are carrying it. A larger range of books would be good, it would be nice if the screen was reflective in sunlight - but all in all I'd hate to do without it.
I have been reading on my cell phone, http://www.booksinmyphone.com/ has a nice reader and a good selection of packaged up public domain and CC books.
I think phones have a lot of potential. Their screens can get a little bigger while still being pocket-able (essential?). I don't really understand why the manufacturers don't include eReader software on the phones.
I agree with your characterization of the issue as being about community / author ownership. I think the original idea of copyright was that the author would have ownership / 'monopoly on reproduction' for 'enough' time to reap a reasonable reward and then the ownership would pass to the community. In exchange for the value to the community it would provide a legal framework that could be used to defenf the authors monopoly for that initial period.
I'm a bit confused about who you want to be defended from though. Existing laws already protect against commercial piracy operations and even non-commercial distribution. It's just a case of enforcing them - the easy targets seem to be single mothers in the USA. Do the movie studio's steal work to make bad films? sue em under existing laws...
It seems now the copyrighteous want not only to extend the period of protection (that the community 'funds' through having laws and courts to hear the cases) but also to increase how much the community directly funds the defence of the copyright holders monopoly. They want their cake and they want someone else to pay for it, oh the want it forever.
The trick we are all faced with is finding a new balance between the author and the community under the new technical reality of zero cost copying and distribution.
Slashdot Mirror
A huge range of physical phones can run java j2me based software without needing to determine device configurations etc. Sun says there are about 2.5 Billion j2me/midp enabled handsets out there.
Unfortunately the various carriers then balkanized this 'code once run everywhere' capability in order to try to capture cashflow from developers (independent testing. certification, and signing anyone?) and customers (all the many app stores).
Can you provide a link to substantiate your claim? I had trouble finding anything definitive.
Also for everyone's reference here is a more complete quote of Jefferson:
Ever notice how there was never one part of the map overlapping another? At any point there was always only ever the floor and the ceiling - at various levels, and able to raise/lower (lifts/doors anyone?). In that important sense it was 2D; a 2D map 'extruded' as a special case into 3D - not an arbitrary collection of 3D geometry. Oh and the sprites, they were bill-boarded 2D also.
Not so stupid, depending one what you mean.
I read the summary as them finding a way to create a p2p network of 'customers' (clients who pay to be in your p2p network where you deliver paid content) and protecting yourself from the 'customers' who 'collude' (e.g. hacked client s/w?) with non paying client s/w to allow non paying customers to get the content. I don't think it's about subverting an existing network, it's about protecting a network from subversion. If so then the techniques could presumably be used for other purposes, poisoning surveillance perhaps.
Maybe they/we need a crypto-twitter app?
Does something like this exist?
If the phone had a real preemptive time sharing OS and an appropriately restricted API (enforced time/space/cpu quota, only screen, touch, and sound access) then it would be a trivial exercise to know a prog was 'safe'. At the moment they have a broad API and Apple's idea of safe and your might well not be the same (location data anyone? what exactly is the app going to do with the network access it's asking for...).
Perhaps Pandora hopes to have radio come to the aid of internet radio - "We'll drag you down with us if you don't step up!".
they could/should have!
It's very complex for people to know what they could take from a work like Glimpses of an Unfamiliar Japan, at best the publishers over broad claim has a chilling effect at worst it might indeed be copyfraud.
It would be good for the public if the copyright notices called out exactly what they were claiming, a footer on every page would be fine and do-able. In the commonly claimed case of adding prefaces etc if would be very easy.
It's better for publishers to make broad vague claims. The exclusionary effect of the claims are supported by the huge penalties for infringement. Conversely the cost of over claiming seems small/unlikely to be called out - publishers can always 'clarify away' their over-claim if it comes to the crunch.
Great idea! a public DD of copyfraud instances would be very useful.
It would give everyone something to point to to show the difference between infringement and theft. If people could add themselves to the affected list for a particular instance we'd know which instances might be vulnerable to action. If it was wikified so discussion of theft/legitimate claims was public it would be a great educational tool. It might provide a chilling effect on the fraudsters.
Most cell phones make decent ebook readers.
A couple of clicks at http://www.booksinmyphone.com/ or it's mobile site and you can get some book apps running in just about any phone.
The main stumbling blocks are that it's only really 'click to install' if you have internet access and the carriers have not crippled your phone to try to extract more $ from you. Those aside I had a fine reading experience on my four year old phone.
For a lot of MMOs time IS money and so the game designers use XP to ration the content (areas, capabilities, classes, etc) and extend playing time to reap more $$$. The game design is all all about placing barriers to content access - this is an incentive for users to generate content that avoids the barriers.
It seems like you cannot avoid a red-queen race (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen) unless you change the underlying incentives. I've no idea how or what you would be left with after...
Good points all; but...
YouTube has deep pockets and scribd may not.
I agree that anything large enough to be a 'real' worry will be obvious and DMCA taken down in short order - but that argument also holds for music and video and so far I'm not aware of anyone who has stepped up to try to take a direct cut from a transaction like that. Actually I guess there are some analogous music selling sites, they could be predictors for what will happen in this case.
I also agree that anything small 'the publishers' 'should not worry about' - but *IAA will sue you for 9 songs ...
All in all it should be interesting.
I assume they qualify for the DMCA safe harbor provisions - but so did YouTube and they were sued by Viacom and settled out of court.
Can one read the constitution as saying:
i.e. it's purpose is to grow the public domain, the rest is just mechanism and a choice about how to trade off public good against private good.
The copyrighteous act like a kid who is happy to take the pocket money but not happy to do the chores. They employ Orwellian newspeak by referring to the whole balanced copyright trade-off as 'their property'. They focus only on the protected monopoly and do everything in their power to extend their monopoly duration (even for already created works, no incentive is big enough to change the past) and stop works falling into the public domain.
.
"(no fees for each app or update uploaded)" - not so as far as I know.
Ovi is requiring each app be "Java Verified" ( http://www.javaverified.com/ ), which requires third party testing on each 'class' of phone at a cost to the developer of around $150. So if you wanted to cover all Nokia's models it will cost you more than $1000 per app to get it certified as 'uploadable' (I cannot figure out exactly how many 'classes' / 'lead devices' there are). Any change or update to the app requires re certification.
You can check out how happy everyone is here: http://discussion.forum.nokia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=161596
firstly it's likely to be abused - as demonstrated by the failure of the copyrighteous to use the existing laws correctly. Secondly it reverses the onus of proof and removes even due process - which makes the abuse much more potent and the chilling effect on legitimate activity that much more powerful.
The people pushing these laws want to be sure they are the only conduit by which any (even perfectly legal) content can be distributed. We all know how well monopolies work out - why make it easier for the incumbents to maintain and extend theirs?
"that affects audio playback in any way"
hmm - but might affect you ability to sell an interoperable device?
I really hope it's not the case that results can be rejected due to the lack of a mechanism to explain them.
Darwin had no mechanism to back his theory of 'origin of species by natural selection'. The mechanisms people had theorized at the time were not really compatible with Darwin's ideas. It wasn't till Mendel's work was appreciated that people had a viable mechanism for the inheritance that fit with Darwin's evolutionary theory.
There is always the 'vicarious infringement': 'Vicarious infringement occurs where someone has a direct financial interest in the infringing actions being committed by another and has the ability to control it, even if they do not know that the infringement is taking place and do not directly take part in it.' or 'contributory infringement ': 'Contributory infringement occurs where someone knows that infringing activity is taking place and either induces it, causes it, or materially contributes to it.' (http://www.quizlaw.com/copyrights/what_is_vicarious_infringement.php) these arguments would center on the question of text-to-speech as 'format shifting' (not okay in the UK?) or some kind of infringement.
I'd start here http://www.squeakland.org/ the environment is based on smalltalk 80 and is pretty pure OO, so even though it looks like a toy they will 'get their mind right'.
On the surface it has a fantastic drag'n'drop tile based scripting layer that allows kids to quickly get toy and demo things working - building both familiarity with concepts, confidence, and interest. This http://www.squeakland.org/school/drive_a_car/html/Drivecar12.html jumps into instructions for a 5 minute draw a car and write the program to bind it to a drawn steering wheel. You can quickly progress to programs with sensors doing track following. I've used it to make flocking games (like herding cows etc) for the amusement of my kids.
It is intended that you can drop under the scripting and start using the full OO smalltalk (http://www.squeak.com) classes, inheritence, coding while you debug while you run. OS integration, OpenGL bindings, links to DBs, multimedia, a whole host of good stuff.
The idea is to give them something it's easy o come to grips with but that is OO, open, and as deep as you want to go.
I find my cell phone makes a great super portable, super cheap (prepaid) e-reader. You'd think the small screen would be an issue, but the author's language quickly takes over. My phone seems happy to install apps so with a few clicks on a website like www.booksinmyphone.com I can get a book wirelessly - like a Kindle that is so small you don't realize you are carrying it. A larger range of books would be good, it would be nice if the screen was reflective in sunlight - but all in all I'd hate to do without it.
I have been reading on my cell phone, http://www.booksinmyphone.com/ has a nice reader and a good selection of packaged up public domain and CC books. I think phones have a lot of potential. Their screens can get a little bigger while still being pocket-able (essential?). I don't really understand why the manufacturers don't include eReader software on the phones.
lord help us all ...
DI must be the premiere creationist org today - right?
some "Atheists Killing Puppies" != all "Atheists Kill puppies"
It seems DI is using Harvard's picture of a tomato and pointing out 'they say "tomayto" and we say "tomaato"'.
I agree with your characterization of the issue as being about community / author ownership. I think the original idea of copyright was that the author would have ownership / 'monopoly on reproduction' for 'enough' time to reap a reasonable reward and then the ownership would pass to the community. In exchange for the value to the community it would provide a legal framework that could be used to defenf the authors monopoly for that initial period.
I'm a bit confused about who you want to be defended from though. Existing laws already protect against commercial piracy operations and even non-commercial distribution. It's just a case of enforcing them - the easy targets seem to be single mothers in the USA. Do the movie studio's steal work to make bad films? sue em under existing laws...
It seems now the copyrighteous want not only to extend the period of protection (that the community 'funds' through having laws and courts to hear the cases) but also to increase how much the community directly funds the defence of the copyright holders monopoly. They want their cake and they want someone else to pay for it, oh the want it forever.
The trick we are all faced with is finding a new balance between the author and the community under the new technical reality of zero cost copying and distribution.