I would not go as far as saying that Gibson propsed an idea of a network that was open to all (though that might have been the way I read the question, not what the original author met). Gibson's cyberspace was accessible to people via a number of means, but to get to the information/content, that was tightly controlled via the use of ICE and was mostly held by corporate interests.
Unfortunately, right now, we are headed that way, with various bills in the US and abroad which gives commercial copyright holders much stronger protection for their works in cyberspace than any other medium. And while most of the internet backbone and basics were developed by non-commercial interests, it's now nearly all in the hands of commercial developers, so they will have a say in what is done on *their* net assuming that nothing changes the way it's going. The Lars interview yesterday also suggested that while we're free to go out and create content that is our own, it's very hard to get people to see that content in the first place. Even nowadays, as the number of commercial 'content' sites on the web flourish, it is very hard to get a non-commercial content site up and running from scratch without a good starting base for the users.
Thus, if things keep going the way they are, we head towards the information kiosk; information and content controlled by a select few, pay-per-view or -use type pricing. The only people this benefits is the commercial business.
However, there are some major lawsuits and cases that are going to help decide if this is the direction that we will go. RIAA vs MP3 (in genenal), arguements against the DCMA, providing ISPs with no content liability, the legalities of linking, etc. There's a lot of cases that slashdot covers in YRO that if you don't follow and watch what happens, the free and open internet becomes the bleak future that Gibson descibed.
Um, unsoliciated fax ruling in effect here?
on
Advertising Via GPS
·
· Score: 2
Ok, there's the one possible thing of having a truely free cel phone service for the point of being forced to see ads. Of course, you'd sign up for this, and agree that in exchange for the ads, you'd get free or reduced cost service.
But the cost of cel phone service is still expensive enough (especially since some plans also charge your incoming calls as well as outgoing) that if you signed up for service without any mention of ads, would this be comparible to the Unsoliciated FAX law?
I wish there was something that we could do as a nation (or united world) as private citizens to contest the increasing invasive advertizing. Companies think it works, but when you advertize for common necessities, people are going to buy them anyway, and a boycott is probably impossible since the items are required.
I would not *want* a home that already had a broadband net connection; that would probably mean that my provider has already been picked out for me and that the cost of the house might have been offset by the fact that I would have to sign a x-year binding contract with said provider, otherwise, tack another $10k to the home cost (or something like that).
While IANAL, I have a friend that is and I think that giving out legal advice (which can consistitue answering legal questions as such) without charging for it can be considered a violation of the Bar (not originally used to make money but basically to prevent the legal profession from being blamed for giving out bad advice when casually asked for it.)
According to the numerous articles, the 3rd company would be all of MS's internet applications and services, including such things like MSN and it's travel site. This would be very bad for Microsoft right now, as the next generation of Windows is supposedly going to features tighter intergration with the internet (most likely with features to support pay-per-use or install-less net applications). Ballmer is quoted in one of the articles that this 3 company split would nearly kill off the current development cycle there and force them to restart from scratch.
Which might not be a bad thing; I very much dislike the idea of pay-per-use software.
Half the problem in getting the non-HB 70s and 80s toons is the rights. As pointed out, DIC is sitting on a lot of them, including Inspector Gadget (although I believe Nick got the rights to this.). Filmation is also sitting on the 'other bunch' of them, including The Real Ghostbusters (that is, *not* the one with the gorilla), and CN being a smaller cable network, doesn't quite have the funds to afford these. Of course, internal politics between Turner and WB doesn't help to a great extent. CN's been rather slow in getting WB, and only now will CN be the only network allowed to run the classic Looney Tunes.
However, the other half of the problem is that the people at CN are HB worshippers, including the flagship of the HB universe: Scooby Doo. Right now, CN airs 33 hrs a week of Scooby Doo. Yes, 33 hrs. It's understandable that right now in the teenage group, Scooby Doo is nice and retro but it's getting old way too fast; I suspect that the slow speed that the live action Scooby Doo movie is being put out (the one that Mike Myers is involved) will be on the edge of the lapse of interest in Scooby Doo, and it will run into trouble because of that. But in any case, a network that shows 33 hrs of Doo means that they have to sacrifice a lot for other shows. Many cartoon enthusiasts are upset at how CN is being run today. Sure, in a matter of time things will flatten out, but it's the waiting that's killing everyone.
Most anime is different from American television. Even if the anime show is toyetic, the cartoon is deep; I've been watching Gundam Wing and amazed at the detail for a story that is basically advertizing mech units. Dragonball Z is the same way; sure, that show has a problem with making a 20 minute battle last 40 episodes (or so it seems), but characters and interactions are deep.
Of course, there is no real comparison in American TV. *Maybe* Gargoyles, but I'm pretty sure Disney put out the toon before the toys. *Maybe* the earlier GI Joe and Transformers seasons, but this is somewhat a stretch.
Ok, so FOX kids is placing an old D&D in prime kid advertizing space (mind you, I like the cartoon). There's at least 3 good reasons for this:
There is a D&D movie scheduled to come out this November. No real details on this.
TSR has released on CD ROM most of the stuff for 2nd edition (If I remember what I read in GAMES magazine right). Also, unrelated, 25 years of Dragon magazine is also out on CD rom similar to the MAD collection a while back.
Finally, the 3rd edition of AD&D is soon to be released.
Now, while I do like the cartoon, to push the blatent commercialism makes me sick, especially since at the beginning of the 90s, we were moving away from so-called "toyetic" cartoons ("toyetic" meaning to be centered around the commercialism for a toy; He-Man was a prime example of this). But now, toyetic cartoons are back, Pokemon leading the way, but followed by Max Steel on Kids WB and other such shows. This type of entertainment is not enjoyable, and doesn't have the same corniness and fun that those mid-to-late 80s cartoons had.
If FOX kids was just bringing it for no good reason I would praise them, but this is blatent commercialism.
I once read somewhere that while it wasn't intended, the films "Time Bandits", "Brazil", and "12 Monkeys" form an odd trilogy of movies produced by Terry, representing three phases of life. "Time Bandits" as childhood, "Brazil" as middle age, and "12 Monkeys" as old age. Sure, there's no common thread to them, and I'm sure Terry wasn't planning such, but when you think about it, there's something there.
In any case, I definitely need to rewatch Brazil; I saw it the first and only time on SciFi recently, and it must've been a horribly bad edit or something as I got nothing out of it save for weirdness. But every once I've talked to says it's a great metaphorical piece.
In my plant case, it was using the assumption that patent times were harshly shortened (as many people would want for computer patents). As it stands currently, you're absolutely right; the guy that waits 20 yrs to benefit from public domain is losing 20 years of profit. On the other hand, if patents were only 5 years, there might be an advantage to waiting to turn on the system and make money without licensing fees compared with starting right away but paying it.
Actually... WinModems and that nice dual processor 600Mhz computer will have little effect on the performace, but if you take a 200Mhz, add a WinModem, and try to play Halflife (or some other CPU intensive game), you'll notice a very large hit in performace; before I switched to an external 56k modem, my pings were 300-400, and now are 150-250. Frame rates were also noticably better with the external modem.
Cheap but good quality hardware is good. But to pass on something as basic as net connectivity to the CPU especially as bandwidth sizes increase, is a bad idea in the end. Furthermore, that's one less slot that you could have filled with a second video card or the like.
...but it's the damn length of time, AND the vagueness that people can get away with in some of them.
Due to my research, I've looked at patents where they actually make sense; chemicals and chemical processing, in which the patent usually revolves around the composition of the catalyst used. Some of these are very narrow, but some cover huge numbers of possible compositions, as well as large numbers of possible elements to use. (Such as up to 20 metals as catalyst promotors.) This would be all well and good if their provided enough examples of these, but in most cases, only 2 to 3 examples are given, covering only a tiny amount of their 'composition space'. Sure, I know that one can extroplate that if platinum (a noble metal) works, then most likely other noble metals such as palladium will also work, but most of the metal selections don't have rhyme or reason-- they just take as many as possible.
This is part of what needs to de done: the reviewing of the patent. Often I read that the patent office is swapped, and they have to push patents through as fast as possible to achieve their required quota, and furthermore, especially for computer-based patents, the expertise is not there. One solution is to throw more money at the problem and get more patent people in place with more viable skills with newer patents, but that's only half the problem.
The other is the time factor. Earlier this century, when the speed of information transfer was limited to snail mail, telegraph, and the telephone, the disclosure of ideas would take a long time, and thus long times for the delays of patents was necessary. However, as we've got to television, satillite communications, the internet, and whatnot, information moves much much faster, and the same time that was required 100 yrs ago is not really needed. However, one must still considered that there are a considerable number of patents that come out on tangible, real, processes (such as chemical production); if the patent office was to shorten up the time scale too much, a competiting company can design and build a facility (which can take a few years) that uses a patents but turning it on the day after the patent lapses, and benefit from the findings of the other company without paying for it, which is highly uncompetitive to the entire field.
So the time of patents does need to be shorted but not too much; 17 yrs is currently too long for the e-commerce patents, but 5 yrs is too short for process patents. Furthermore, you cannot just catagorize patents into "short term" and "long term" ones; while you could easily seperate the patents of today into those two areas, how can you know that in the next few years someone will have a patent that could fall into both because of the thinning of the real and virtual worlds? The nature of the patent should grant it no special privaleges.
At this point I would argue 7 to 10 years for patents. It should be long enough for the patents that were truly put in place to be protected, but fast enough for the new types of patents to disappear quickly. But of course, if combine this with patent reform and a tightening of the review process, few "bogus" patents would be issued, and we would not have to wait 7 to 10 years for that bogus patent to elapse.
Right now, and really for the past 5-7yrs, depending on when you set the start of the WWW, there's a good neutral zone between the fanfic authors and copyright holders. Most fanfic authors are fans enough of the show and understand the problems if they were to try to outdo the producers, possible reverse-suing the producers for taking their ideas. They follow suggests that the producers put out (for example, JMS requested no B5 fanfic be posted (at least, B5 fanfic that was trying to be canon) until after the series completed, as to prevent dilution of his own ideas, and as far as I know, it's been held up well. General fanfic writing groups also know what the produces think about the fanfic world and try to work with them (read MST3K:-) ).
On the other hand, the copyright holders know that fanfic is inevitable for anything with a fan base. To stop fanfiction save in the case of misrepresting *childrens characters* would be the same as trying to stop kids from making up their own stories to use when they play with GI Joe or Transformers. As the article states, most fanfic authors are not in it for the money, they are trying to improve their writing and get commentary back. So as long as fanfic people do not put their work as 'official' or benefit any more from it, I see no reason for copyright holders to get involved.
That said, there are a few isolated cases of fanfic that crosses these rules. Obviously some ametures try to make money off the fanfic, which is in poor taste. Some go beyond reasonable: sure, a slash Buffy fic might not appeal to everyone, but its still considered fair use, but on the other hand, if one used the fanfic to slander and libel the producers, there's call for action.
While lawsuits regarding the MPAA and RIAA and Am. Broadcasters Assoc, and a whole bunch of other people that feel they are in charge of lawsuits, fanfic have been skimming underneath all this trouble. It would be helpful or potentally problematic to have a once-and-for-all legal ruling on fanfic, but the risk is high; fanfic protection is not 100% guarenteed.
Hopefully, the IP producers will release that fanfic is not losing their business and in fact can help it, and thus continue to encourage it. Some go a bit too far; the starwars.com site mentioned in the article, as well as WB's Acme City; post your fanfic and it becomes their. Sure, they encourage it, but you lose all their work for it. I certainly don't hope that the IPs don't try to push the model that fanfic is only valid if it is off their site (and therefore their property).
(And as a quick followup, any new TLD sans country codes will never have less than 3 characters, while all 2 letter "TLD"s are country codes. Should help you figure out where the abuse of the system comes into play).
Please read the article. DotTV did not suddenly get ICANN to create a new TLD, they just gave the country that.tv corresponds to a cool $50mill for the ability to register domains in that country code.
However, this is just as dangerous as if they were able to get a new TLD. The domain name *still* means something; it's not something that you should play around with to make a kEwl sounding name. Unfortunately, other small contries have allowed their country two-letter suffix be used for this, setting a bad precident. (microsoftsu.cx, for example).
Also, IIRC, DotTV is charginge $5000 a pop per domain name. They can do this, as.tv is not maintained by NSI or ICANN, but this also sets a very poor precident. $5000 a pop means that only commercial interests will be able to register domain names here, and thus, it's going to give an edge to any major entertainment venue over a fan-run site. I strongly believe we are at a point where no single commercial organization can control the registerations for a single domain; it either has to be done by panel (ICANN) or the government. DotTV has a lot of power right now, but I suspect someone's going to look into this practice shortly.
I would only say there is a problem if the police could completely hide records that are meant to be open to the public by law. Ethically, this is bad, but they aren't censoring things, just making it more difficult to learn about them.
However, you then run into the problem that sort of falls into the Hitchhikers Guide situation: they could make it as hard as possible to find the public notices, but they are still available.
Maybe there needs to be a public good consideration in these releases. Does the incidence affect more than a certain percentage of the local population? Are the lives or personal property of the population in trouble? Sure, this could cause more problems, but if the police were to report on every incidence they cover, local papers would be rather thick...
I've not run NT or Office, but as with most Microsoft products, the scaleup is more a function of memory and swap space rather than processor speed. GNOME/KDE is different in that speed scales with the CPU speed, and as pointed out elsewhere, this is due to the extra X layer.
And right now I am running Sawmill on a 486 with no problems. I could probably use E!, but I'm limited by 256 colors, so not much point there. The WM speed is not in question, but it's everything on top of the WM (the panel, config panels, layout) of the GNOME engine that I question.
One of the common pros for linux and GNU/OSS stuff when reported in the media is the ability to use it on older machines. I certainly know this to be true; a good-sized and visited website with dynamic content can be done on a 486 with a sufficient amount of memory.
Even with Windows95, as long as the memory is there, it will run without too much of a noticable speed.
But when I've tried early versions of GNOME and KDE on a 486, the processor speed plays a very important role; these GUIs are both very CPU intensive, and on a 486 felt more than sluggish.
Sure, hardware is cheap, and most would argue there's no reason why one can't buy a older pentium system and be ok with that. But the point of Linux is to be as free as possible and to work on as many systems as possible. All those 486s are finding uses as Linux boxen, and with 'slow' GUIs, the speed and stability promise of Linux is lost.
Obviously I doubt that either GNOME or KDE can go back and reoptimize their code to be less CPU intensive. But what can happen is to make sure that the apps that are written do not require that GNOME or KE to be runnning, only that the appropriate libraries are installed, so that, for example, an optimized WM can be used for GUI purposes.
For example, their communications package, Evolution, sounds like it will be a great program. But if it requires you to have GNOME running, it's going to be lost on a number of folks.
There is a tradeoff here : speed verses chrome. And, IMO, speed wins out every time.
Obviously, MS wants to settle to avoid the FoF becoming legal, while the DoJ is not playing "slap on the wrist" games as its done before. Both these sides are looking to protect their appropriate interests.
However, one thing that is negligected when talks of the result of this case are mentioned are finacal ones; not just how it will affect MS's finances, but the stock market. Everyone knows that most high tech stocks, especially the IPOs of late, are riding a bubble, and at some point, that bubble *has* to burst. I think both Judge Jackson and most market people realize that even with a ruling on MS that is in accordance with the law and anti-monopoly tactics, it WILL hurt the market. Especially given the levels that have been suggested by the reports of how big the judgement will be. When that stock bubble breaks, it probably will not take down the whole market, but it will ripple through the current booming economy badly.
So I think that Jackson was trying to encourage a settlement to avoid breaking the market; a settlement is much more pleasing to investors than a government ruling. But, as either DOJ of MS is not yeilding to the other side, that won't be happening. Brace yourselves for a very interesting week this week.
Propaganda can (could have been, if this is 4/1, and the explicit statement in the article) be found at propaganda.themes.org, and is a collected of largish, artsy wallpapers good for both your computer desktops and web page backgrounds. The site was built around the theme of the ghost of JFK helping us to fight a WWII-like battle against the blandness of Microsoft Wallpapers. Most of these were Gimp-derived, and worked well with E themes, making them so-called "linux wallpapers".
Propaganda has been my sole sore for wallpapers of late, and if this truly isn't a April Fool's, it will be sad to see it go. Hopefully someone is as artsy as the old maintainers to provide these types of wallpapers in the future.
I appluad the writers of the first comment that is linked in this story, and if you're skimming it to read why King can't read his book, take a step back and read this too. It not only focuses on the DMCA, but also addresses Napster, DeCSS, the Sony Playstation, and a bunch of other topics that are all very much in question under the DMCA.
A very strong point is the idea of "primary purpose", as the authors note. This generally is used in references to hardware, but the DMCA challenges it's use possibly in software, and this is legally defended, it opens a whole new can of worms. Suddenly, nearly any program, OSS or not, can be pointed to as a tool in piracy, including all basic TCP/IP apps to the Linux kernel to Microsoft Office and beyond. Definitely food for thought.
Unfortunately, we probably can't make the DMCA go away; the best we can hope for is that the Copyright Office makes very clear and favorable decisions in light of fair use, and that when a DMCA violation is challenged at the Supreme Court, they will favor the side of the consumer.
I realize that yes, the women did actually deserve to win the case, but I refer to it for two facts: the US is very lawsuit frantic -- if you can't fix it, sue. Additionally, lawsuits that private citizens bring against major corporates generally involve very huge excessive sums that are definitely well outside of the amount they deserved. I can see the woman getting maybe $25k to $100k for medical bills and new clothes/car interior, but more than a million? "Mental anguish" needs to get a well defined price tag if we continue to depend on courts to decide the American way.
With many recent open source projects, there is a lot of borrowing of code from other open source projects. Why reivent wheels? In addition, if an open source project finds a faster way of doing something, why not use it elsewhere when appropriate?
Take that thought to open games, specifically D20. How many role playing systems are out there? I'd guess that there are at least 10 major ones, and 100+ althoughter. And because they've been around for 20+ yrs, they've been well established, so that most people that play RPGs will be familiar with two or more systems.
So what if someone tries to add something for a 'closed' RPG system to the open system? Sure, concepts may be brought across, but I'm thinking more along the lines of specific tables. A good example is incorporating the critical hit tables that the Rolemaster system offered with D20, word for word. Does the OGL prevent this? Does WotC have protection from other RPG makers in case this does happen ?
One of the example cases listed in the article is how the creetor of Buffy was fine with how a fan was transcribing every episode, and even went so far to sign one himself. Yet the fan was C&D'd not by the Buffy people, but by the people that own it, FOX.
This mirrors very strongly with the RIAA case, in which there are several artists under major record labels that want to support MP3s but their record label says no. The true creative owners of the works, because of signing deals with megacorps, have lost the ability to be able to be said what is done with their work. On the other hand, the way that music and creative work distribution has been done before the internet, any creative person that signed with an independant distributor would have quickly faded into obscurity. Along these lines, I would suggest that part of the deal with CSS and the MPAA is that they want to limit the number of films out there that do not go through the MPAA. Up till recently, they've done a good job, but the recent successes of art house films (Blair Witch, Pi) are beginning to push the envelope.
It all comes down to the fact that RIAA, MPAA, the major television networks, the major publishers, all want to be the sole distributor of creative works. If they had there way, most of the money that we spend on our entertainment will go through them, and then they distribute to their respective creative artists, but keeping a large portion for themselves. Sure, before the internet, people made their own works, and distributed them without the help of the major channels, but the audience they would achieve would be very very small compared to major distribution artists. The internet has changed all that, and allows anyone with simple tools to become their own publisher; in some cases, enterprising people have become small distribution houses themselves but certainly without the same cut that the major ones take (e.g. MP3.com, goodnoise.com).
In otherwords, RIAA, MPAA, and the rest appear to be trying to maintain a monopoly.
Sure, there's no strong evidence for that, and a lot of connections would have to be made for that. But if these groups are successful (hopefully not) in their current court cases, it might be easier and easier to prove that such a monopoly exists. Remember one of Judge Jackson's key points on Microsoft and it's monopoly was that the cost of entering the field that Microsoft has set is too high to be overcome reasonably, thus suggesting monopoly powers. Try to get your own film to more than 30 screens accross the country, or a fiction book you wrote yourself in every bookstore without the aid of one of the major companies. Can't do it, can you?
One additional point, however, that was made in the article, and in all fairness is a concern, is the issue of dilution. I know it wasn't mentioned specifically, but I remember hearing that one of the reasons that Disney did not want to give up the copyright on Mickey Mouse was that they were afraid of people placing him in high erotic (and beyond) situations with no ability to protect that. Ok, sure, you and the rest of slashdot readerships would know that if you saw such a picture, you would know for sure that it wasn't by Disney. But this is America, where a woman can win millions of dollars for spilling hot coffee all over herself. We HAVE to think that everyone is stupid, lest we avoid legal problems. I could see a case that if dilution of trademark laws were not in place, that a parent may be able to sue Disney over that pic (even though Disney didn't make it) as it traumetized her child. Such cases are more a concern when the characters and situations are aimed at young audiences, but the concept is still that the distributor must make sure they don't into such a situation. While extending the copyright time is one way, it's a placebo (and a bad one at that); instead, education of the masses on what "derivative works" mean, and co-operation with the various fanbases to help establish guidelines (as has been done for some shows like B5) will help set rules that need not be extended time after time...
Why reinvent the wheel? Adobe designed PDF to be a portable format that includes graphics and pixel-perfect layout. Sure, the standard is closed, and one can claim to fall back on (gh)postscript, but it's not widely known or supported. PDF came out at the right time, and this compiled HTML stuff sounds like another MS tactic to knock the competition leader down.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, right now, we are headed that way, with various bills in the US and abroad which gives commercial copyright holders much stronger protection for their works in cyberspace than any other medium. And while most of the internet backbone and basics were developed by non-commercial interests, it's now nearly all in the hands of commercial developers, so they will have a say in what is done on *their* net assuming that nothing changes the way it's going. The Lars interview yesterday also suggested that while we're free to go out and create content that is our own, it's very hard to get people to see that content in the first place. Even nowadays, as the number of commercial 'content' sites on the web flourish, it is very hard to get a non-commercial content site up and running from scratch without a good starting base for the users.
Thus, if things keep going the way they are, we head towards the information kiosk; information and content controlled by a select few, pay-per-view or -use type pricing. The only people this benefits is the commercial business.
However, there are some major lawsuits and cases that are going to help decide if this is the direction that we will go. RIAA vs MP3 (in genenal), arguements against the DCMA, providing ISPs with no content liability, the legalities of linking, etc. There's a lot of cases that slashdot covers in YRO that if you don't follow and watch what happens, the free and open internet becomes the bleak future that Gibson descibed.
But the cost of cel phone service is still expensive enough (especially since some plans also charge your incoming calls as well as outgoing) that if you signed up for service without any mention of ads, would this be comparible to the Unsoliciated FAX law?
I wish there was something that we could do as a nation (or united world) as private citizens to contest the increasing invasive advertizing. Companies think it works, but when you advertize for common necessities, people are going to buy them anyway, and a boycott is probably impossible since the items are required.
I would not *want* a home that already had a broadband net connection; that would probably mean that my provider has already been picked out for me and that the cost of the house might have been offset by the fact that I would have to sign a x-year binding contract with said provider, otherwise, tack another $10k to the home cost (or something like that).
While IANAL, I have a friend that is and I think that giving out legal advice (which can consistitue answering legal questions as such) without charging for it can be considered a violation of the Bar (not originally used to make money but basically to prevent the legal profession from being blamed for giving out bad advice when casually asked for it.)
Which might not be a bad thing; I very much dislike the idea of pay-per-use software.
However, the other half of the problem is that the people at CN are HB worshippers, including the flagship of the HB universe: Scooby Doo. Right now, CN airs 33 hrs a week of Scooby Doo. Yes, 33 hrs. It's understandable that right now in the teenage group, Scooby Doo is nice and retro but it's getting old way too fast; I suspect that the slow speed that the live action Scooby Doo movie is being put out (the one that Mike Myers is involved) will be on the edge of the lapse of interest in Scooby Doo, and it will run into trouble because of that. But in any case, a network that shows 33 hrs of Doo means that they have to sacrifice a lot for other shows. Many cartoon enthusiasts are upset at how CN is being run today. Sure, in a matter of time things will flatten out, but it's the waiting that's killing everyone.
Of course, there is no real comparison in American TV. *Maybe* Gargoyles, but I'm pretty sure Disney put out the toon before the toys. *Maybe* the earlier GI Joe and Transformers seasons, but this is somewhat a stretch.
There is a D&D movie scheduled to come out this November. No real details on this.
TSR has released on CD ROM most of the stuff for 2nd edition (If I remember what I read in GAMES magazine right). Also, unrelated, 25 years of Dragon magazine is also out on CD rom similar to the MAD collection a while back.
Finally, the 3rd edition of AD&D is soon to be released.
Now, while I do like the cartoon, to push the blatent commercialism makes me sick, especially since at the beginning of the 90s, we were moving away from so-called "toyetic" cartoons ("toyetic" meaning to be centered around the commercialism for a toy; He-Man was a prime example of this). But now, toyetic cartoons are back, Pokemon leading the way, but followed by Max Steel on Kids WB and other such shows. This type of entertainment is not enjoyable, and doesn't have the same corniness and fun that those mid-to-late 80s cartoons had.
If FOX kids was just bringing it for no good reason I would praise them, but this is blatent commercialism.
In any case, I definitely need to rewatch Brazil; I saw it the first and only time on SciFi recently, and it must've been a horribly bad edit or something as I got nothing out of it save for weirdness. But every once I've talked to says it's a great metaphorical piece.
In my plant case, it was using the assumption that patent times were harshly shortened (as many people would want for computer patents). As it stands currently, you're absolutely right; the guy that waits 20 yrs to benefit from public domain is losing 20 years of profit. On the other hand, if patents were only 5 years, there might be an advantage to waiting to turn on the system and make money without licensing fees compared with starting right away but paying it.
Cheap but good quality hardware is good. But to pass on something as basic as net connectivity to the CPU especially as bandwidth sizes increase, is a bad idea in the end. Furthermore, that's one less slot that you could have filled with a second video card or the like.
Due to my research, I've looked at patents where they actually make sense; chemicals and chemical processing, in which the patent usually revolves around the composition of the catalyst used. Some of these are very narrow, but some cover huge numbers of possible compositions, as well as large numbers of possible elements to use. (Such as up to 20 metals as catalyst promotors.) This would be all well and good if their provided enough examples of these, but in most cases, only 2 to 3 examples are given, covering only a tiny amount of their 'composition space'. Sure, I know that one can extroplate that if platinum (a noble metal) works, then most likely other noble metals such as palladium will also work, but most of the metal selections don't have rhyme or reason-- they just take as many as possible.
This is part of what needs to de done: the reviewing of the patent. Often I read that the patent office is swapped, and they have to push patents through as fast as possible to achieve their required quota, and furthermore, especially for computer-based patents, the expertise is not there. One solution is to throw more money at the problem and get more patent people in place with more viable skills with newer patents, but that's only half the problem.
The other is the time factor. Earlier this century, when the speed of information transfer was limited to snail mail, telegraph, and the telephone, the disclosure of ideas would take a long time, and thus long times for the delays of patents was necessary. However, as we've got to television, satillite communications, the internet, and whatnot, information moves much much faster, and the same time that was required 100 yrs ago is not really needed. However, one must still considered that there are a considerable number of patents that come out on tangible, real, processes (such as chemical production); if the patent office was to shorten up the time scale too much, a competiting company can design and build a facility (which can take a few years) that uses a patents but turning it on the day after the patent lapses, and benefit from the findings of the other company without paying for it, which is highly uncompetitive to the entire field.
So the time of patents does need to be shorted but not too much; 17 yrs is currently too long for the e-commerce patents, but 5 yrs is too short for process patents. Furthermore, you cannot just catagorize patents into "short term" and "long term" ones; while you could easily seperate the patents of today into those two areas, how can you know that in the next few years someone will have a patent that could fall into both because of the thinning of the real and virtual worlds? The nature of the patent should grant it no special privaleges.
At this point I would argue 7 to 10 years for patents. It should be long enough for the patents that were truly put in place to be protected, but fast enough for the new types of patents to disappear quickly. But of course, if combine this with patent reform and a tightening of the review process, few "bogus" patents would be issued, and we would not have to wait 7 to 10 years for that bogus patent to elapse.
On the other hand, the copyright holders know that fanfic is inevitable for anything with a fan base. To stop fanfiction save in the case of misrepresting *childrens characters* would be the same as trying to stop kids from making up their own stories to use when they play with GI Joe or Transformers. As the article states, most fanfic authors are not in it for the money, they are trying to improve their writing and get commentary back. So as long as fanfic people do not put their work as 'official' or benefit any more from it, I see no reason for copyright holders to get involved.
That said, there are a few isolated cases of fanfic that crosses these rules. Obviously some ametures try to make money off the fanfic, which is in poor taste. Some go beyond reasonable: sure, a slash Buffy fic might not appeal to everyone, but its still considered fair use, but on the other hand, if one used the fanfic to slander and libel the producers, there's call for action.
While lawsuits regarding the MPAA and RIAA and Am. Broadcasters Assoc, and a whole bunch of other people that feel they are in charge of lawsuits, fanfic have been skimming underneath all this trouble. It would be helpful or potentally problematic to have a once-and-for-all legal ruling on fanfic, but the risk is high; fanfic protection is not 100% guarenteed.
Hopefully, the IP producers will release that fanfic is not losing their business and in fact can help it, and thus continue to encourage it. Some go a bit too far; the starwars.com site mentioned in the article, as well as WB's Acme City; post your fanfic and it becomes their. Sure, they encourage it, but you lose all their work for it. I certainly don't hope that the IPs don't try to push the model that fanfic is only valid if it is off their site (and therefore their property).
(And as a quick followup, any new TLD sans country codes will never have less than 3 characters, while all 2 letter "TLD"s are country codes. Should help you figure out where the abuse of the system comes into play).
However, this is just as dangerous as if they were able to get a new TLD. The domain name *still* means something; it's not something that you should play around with to make a kEwl sounding name. Unfortunately, other small contries have allowed their country two-letter suffix be used for this, setting a bad precident. (microsoftsu.cx, for example).
Also, IIRC, DotTV is charginge $5000 a pop per domain name. They can do this, as .tv is not maintained by NSI or ICANN, but this also sets a very poor precident. $5000 a pop means that only commercial interests will be able to register domain names here, and thus, it's going to give an edge to any major entertainment venue over a fan-run site. I strongly believe we are at a point where no single commercial organization can control the registerations for a single domain; it either has to be done by panel (ICANN) or the government. DotTV has a lot of power right now, but I suspect someone's going to look into this practice shortly.
However, you then run into the problem that sort of falls into the Hitchhikers Guide situation: they could make it as hard as possible to find the public notices, but they are still available.
Maybe there needs to be a public good consideration in these releases. Does the incidence affect more than a certain percentage of the local population? Are the lives or personal property of the population in trouble? Sure, this could cause more problems, but if the police were to report on every incidence they cover, local papers would be rather thick...
And right now I am running Sawmill on a 486 with no problems. I could probably use E!, but I'm limited by 256 colors, so not much point there. The WM speed is not in question, but it's everything on top of the WM (the panel, config panels, layout) of the GNOME engine that I question.
Even with Windows95, as long as the memory is there, it will run without too much of a noticable speed.
But when I've tried early versions of GNOME and KDE on a 486, the processor speed plays a very important role; these GUIs are both very CPU intensive, and on a 486 felt more than sluggish.
Sure, hardware is cheap, and most would argue there's no reason why one can't buy a older pentium system and be ok with that. But the point of Linux is to be as free as possible and to work on as many systems as possible. All those 486s are finding uses as Linux boxen, and with 'slow' GUIs, the speed and stability promise of Linux is lost.
Obviously I doubt that either GNOME or KDE can go back and reoptimize their code to be less CPU intensive. But what can happen is to make sure that the apps that are written do not require that GNOME or KE to be runnning, only that the appropriate libraries are installed, so that, for example, an optimized WM can be used for GUI purposes.
For example, their communications package, Evolution, sounds like it will be a great program. But if it requires you to have GNOME running, it's going to be lost on a number of folks.
There is a tradeoff here : speed verses chrome. And, IMO, speed wins out every time.
However, one thing that is negligected when talks of the result of this case are mentioned are finacal ones; not just how it will affect MS's finances, but the stock market. Everyone knows that most high tech stocks, especially the IPOs of late, are riding a bubble, and at some point, that bubble *has* to burst. I think both Judge Jackson and most market people realize that even with a ruling on MS that is in accordance with the law and anti-monopoly tactics, it WILL hurt the market. Especially given the levels that have been suggested by the reports of how big the judgement will be. When that stock bubble breaks, it probably will not take down the whole market, but it will ripple through the current booming economy badly.
So I think that Jackson was trying to encourage a settlement to avoid breaking the market; a settlement is much more pleasing to investors than a government ruling. But, as either DOJ of MS is not yeilding to the other side, that won't be happening. Brace yourselves for a very interesting week this week.
Propaganda has been my sole sore for wallpapers of late, and if this truly isn't a April Fool's, it will be sad to see it go. Hopefully someone is as artsy as the old maintainers to provide these types of wallpapers in the future.
A very strong point is the idea of "primary purpose", as the authors note. This generally is used in references to hardware, but the DMCA challenges it's use possibly in software, and this is legally defended, it opens a whole new can of worms. Suddenly, nearly any program, OSS or not, can be pointed to as a tool in piracy, including all basic TCP/IP apps to the Linux kernel to Microsoft Office and beyond. Definitely food for thought.
Unfortunately, we probably can't make the DMCA go away; the best we can hope for is that the Copyright Office makes very clear and favorable decisions in light of fair use, and that when a DMCA violation is challenged at the Supreme Court, they will favor the side of the consumer.
I realize that yes, the women did actually deserve to win the case, but I refer to it for two facts: the US is very lawsuit frantic -- if you can't fix it, sue. Additionally, lawsuits that private citizens bring against major corporates generally involve very huge excessive sums that are definitely well outside of the amount they deserved. I can see the woman getting maybe $25k to $100k for medical bills and new clothes/car interior, but more than a million? "Mental anguish" needs to get a well defined price tag if we continue to depend on courts to decide the American way.
Take that thought to open games, specifically D20. How many role playing systems are out there? I'd guess that there are at least 10 major ones, and 100+ althoughter. And because they've been around for 20+ yrs, they've been well established, so that most people that play RPGs will be familiar with two or more systems.
So what if someone tries to add something for a 'closed' RPG system to the open system? Sure, concepts may be brought across, but I'm thinking more along the lines of specific tables. A good example is incorporating the critical hit tables that the Rolemaster system offered with D20, word for word. Does the OGL prevent this? Does WotC have protection from other RPG makers in case this does happen ?
This mirrors very strongly with the RIAA case, in which there are several artists under major record labels that want to support MP3s but their record label says no. The true creative owners of the works, because of signing deals with megacorps, have lost the ability to be able to be said what is done with their work. On the other hand, the way that music and creative work distribution has been done before the internet, any creative person that signed with an independant distributor would have quickly faded into obscurity. Along these lines, I would suggest that part of the deal with CSS and the MPAA is that they want to limit the number of films out there that do not go through the MPAA. Up till recently, they've done a good job, but the recent successes of art house films (Blair Witch, Pi) are beginning to push the envelope.
It all comes down to the fact that RIAA, MPAA, the major television networks, the major publishers, all want to be the sole distributor of creative works. If they had there way, most of the money that we spend on our entertainment will go through them, and then they distribute to their respective creative artists, but keeping a large portion for themselves. Sure, before the internet, people made their own works, and distributed them without the help of the major channels, but the audience they would achieve would be very very small compared to major distribution artists. The internet has changed all that, and allows anyone with simple tools to become their own publisher; in some cases, enterprising people have become small distribution houses themselves but certainly without the same cut that the major ones take (e.g. MP3.com, goodnoise.com).
In otherwords, RIAA, MPAA, and the rest appear to be trying to maintain a monopoly.
Sure, there's no strong evidence for that, and a lot of connections would have to be made for that. But if these groups are successful (hopefully not) in their current court cases, it might be easier and easier to prove that such a monopoly exists. Remember one of Judge Jackson's key points on Microsoft and it's monopoly was that the cost of entering the field that Microsoft has set is too high to be overcome reasonably, thus suggesting monopoly powers. Try to get your own film to more than 30 screens accross the country, or a fiction book you wrote yourself in every bookstore without the aid of one of the major companies. Can't do it, can you?
One additional point, however, that was made in the article, and in all fairness is a concern, is the issue of dilution. I know it wasn't mentioned specifically, but I remember hearing that one of the reasons that Disney did not want to give up the copyright on Mickey Mouse was that they were afraid of people placing him in high erotic (and beyond) situations with no ability to protect that. Ok, sure, you and the rest of slashdot readerships would know that if you saw such a picture, you would know for sure that it wasn't by Disney. But this is America, where a woman can win millions of dollars for spilling hot coffee all over herself. We HAVE to think that everyone is stupid, lest we avoid legal problems. I could see a case that if dilution of trademark laws were not in place, that a parent may be able to sue Disney over that pic (even though Disney didn't make it) as it traumetized her child. Such cases are more a concern when the characters and situations are aimed at young audiences, but the concept is still that the distributor must make sure they don't into such a situation. While extending the copyright time is one way, it's a placebo (and a bad one at that); instead, education of the masses on what "derivative works" mean, and co-operation with the various fanbases to help establish guidelines (as has been done for some shows like B5) will help set rules that need not be extended time after time...
Why reinvent the wheel? Adobe designed PDF to be a portable format that includes graphics and pixel-perfect layout. Sure, the standard is closed, and one can claim to fall back on (gh)postscript, but it's not widely known or supported. PDF came out at the right time, and this compiled HTML stuff sounds like another MS tactic to knock the competition leader down.