I just got done reading an article in this months' issue of Popular Science that discusses three or four up-and-coming robots that will be commercially available. They're a bit pricey at around $4K a pop, BUT...one in particular (irobot, www.irobot.com), even runs LINUX as its OS.
If Narcivore gets anywhere, what do you bet that ISP's are just a start? The justice department will come up with some *other* lame excuse that there's just no way they can catch all the [insert favorite criminal behavior here] without having access to the backbone. That's why projects like this (or *any* government project, for that matter) needs VERY careful scrutiny before they're ever started. Typically, it's a one-way street - once they start, they only want more, and more, and more (more money, more control, and more time).
I don't drink, smoke or do drugs - coffee (latte, actually) and diet soda are my vices. Part of this comes from being a control freak - or should I say, an in control freak. I'd hate it if I had to submit to the effects of a drug like coke, heroin, ecstacy, or whatever. I can get high enough on all of the interesting things that life has to offer.
It has to do with the fact that Microsoft is so big, so monolithic, so...everywhere, that the threat of stagnation is its own worst enemy. The ONLY way MS can hope to show even a hint that it still has some kind of innovative energy is to BUY it from other companies. Corel now owns Painter, and there is NO WAY IN HELL that MS could manage that kind of innovation on its own. I realize that the agreement focused on MS's ".NET" initiative (something I hope joins some of MS's other failed efforts) - it will be very disconcerting if this agreement allows any kind of implicit influence on other aspects of Corel's business.
It just dawned on me...if this is accurate, any site could make the claim that it has a "one-click" process. it's just a matter of which click it's referring to.
...apple should be concerned about, licensing the "innovative" one-click method so brazenly patented by Amazon isn't it. Apple's stock price just fell 50% last week, and I doubt that the stock price will be affected even the most miniscule amount by licensing the "innovative" one-click method.
The fact of the matter is that Apple has made some poor choices (the Cube, for example). This announcement makes it somewhat comedic, since Apple is basically saying, "Gee, now you can buy what put us in the dumper with one click, instead of three!" - a real blessing for the stockholders.
The interesting thing about this author/publisher relationship is this: authors, if they care about their success, will evaluate prospective publishers. And as well they should, in order to determine if the manner in which the publisher conducts the production and distribution of their work is in line with their own principles. There's no written rule that says an author *has* to use a publisher that insists on a UCITA-like stranglehold - but if the author chooses to do so anyway, let the chips fall where they may. If they lose their shirt, tough.
Of course, this is predicated on the assumption that consumers will have the fortitude to stand up and refuse to purchase this kind of product. We all know that it doesn't work with music, so maybe it won't work here either. Time will tell.
ol' Billy Boy needs to read up on what happened to IBM...once thought (by the execs anyway) to be infallible, unstoppable, and impenetrable, it took a NASTY hit when reality finally set in. Microsoft doesn't seem understand that even though the vast majority of computers might now be using its operating system and several of its apps, it's by no means immune from normal market pressures. At $1000 a pop, I'm SURE that the market will find a way around it.
If you truly believe this, when do you think you'll start promoting and participating in rallies, boycotts, and other means of coercion, demanding that every university release all of their research data into the public domain? It *is* information, and it *does* want to be free, doesn't it?
Even if Napster is banned by universities, I'm convinced that Napster will never go away because there are too many people who find it too easy to rationalize, in every way imaginable, the theft of this kind of property. With respect to the aforementioned question, I doubt seriously that "consistency" is a word that will characterize the most common approaches to this issue - including those of the universities themselves. It's rather hypocritical to suggest that some intellectual property ought to be subject to public theft (music), while they retain tight control over their own.
Everytime I'm at the grocery store watching people gleefully fork over their discount card, I wonder if they have any idea about what they're doing. I stopped using my card and started paying cash - the discount just isn't worth it. From the store's perspective, there is no connection between me and what I buy. Some people may wonder, "What's the big deal?" Well, people need to realize that they're PEOPLE, and not just revenue feeds for the commerce machine. I get the feeling that this new approach to marketing wants to turn our society into a mass of pavlovian droids - we advertise, you salivate, and then give us your money.
So what's the alternative? Live in an environment where everything is so shackled and menacled with security measures that using it just isn't worth the hassle?
An artist could create several versions, each with the ad in different places. Not only that, but there's nothing that would prevent them from shortening the length of the song to make room for it. This could make it nearly indistinguishable from the real thing. Muahahahah.....
Now...if people are REALLY serious about showing the RIAA who is boss, STOP BUYING THEIR CDS! I was soooooo amused when I saw earlier that a group was calling for a boycott of the RIAA, as if it was something special. Like, duh.....
Any time a government gets involved in what was once an openly free process, it raises the specter of control. I will concede that government participation played a significant part in the development of the net, but I think now that it's here, we should leave it at that. I'd hate to see open source become the next federal welfare program.
Why single out software? What is being discussed is a problem with virtually *any* complex system, and I personally think it has more to do with the (human) processes of discovery, invention, innovation, and implementation. These are fragile processes, because they require, by nature, the identification and eradication of the various aspects that cause failure. Add to this any additional problems associated with organizatonal dynamics (management, motivation, morale, compensation, interpersonal dynamics, etc.), and it easy to see how something complex can fail.
I don't think it's possible to work out all of the bugs in a piece of software, simply because there are too many unseen variables. But I also don't think it's fair to cast software development in a different light merely because it is subject to the same "rules" that govern any complex system. As a means of comparison, consider how long it takes to implement a new commercial aircraft design. Consider how many defense-related projects are, or have been over budget, poorly designed, or scrapped altogether. It was, after all, a hardware "bug" that caused the explosion of the Challenger shuttle. Hell, I'd argue that it's even a hardware "bug" responsible for the Firestone debacle.
Is it fair to hold software development to a different standard? No matter which complex system you're dealing with, it always involves getting from point A to point B, and it's not always going to be an easy ride.
in my opinion, especially with the likes of Firestone and tobacco industry, both of which purportedly knew their products were problematic, and yet continued to sell them to an unsuspecting public. But generally, I think there also has to be a means whereby a corporation can conduct business without having to worry about being dissolved everytime an unfortunate circumstance crops up (McDonald's coffee anyone?).
Even in the worst of cases, though, I'm not sure that dissolving a corporation would be a good thing - especially if it's a large one that provides a significant number of jobs. As long as the officers can be tried for criminal intent or criminal activity, this may be sufficient.
This system actually serves to enrich the middlemen, not the artist. With our current system, artists make very little money from record sales.
So how does taking it without paying make it any better? Sure, it might deprive the "middlemen" of some money, but you're also depriving the artist. And, horror of horrors, what if the artists chooses to distribute their music through these middlemen? Is that not their choice?
The thing that I find really spineless about the "taking without paying" mentality is that the very fact that people are doing this qualfies it as nothing little more than an excuse. If you really want to make a statement, don't buy it, and don't take it. Period. Pure, simple, market dynamics. This is the only clean way to let everyone (the artist, the distributors, etc.) that you are not willing to accept the terms of their offer. If they want to continue to make money, they will find a way to come with terms that are more satisfactory. It never ceases to amaze me the way that consumers have this power, but for lack of a little bit of self-discipline, refuse to put it to work for them.
I'm perfectly aware of supply and demand. You're arguing that because a digital copy of music implies a potentially unlimited supply, and that because each copy costs nearly nothing to
produce
, that this ought to be reflected in the cost. But there's nothing that prevents me, the artist, from standing up and saying, "I have this song that I wrote, and for $5.00, I'm willing to provide you with a copy." Either it's valuable enough that you'll want to pay the $5.00, or it's not. If the value isn't there, what rational basis exists that affords you the right to take it anyway? Remember...it's not your property.
if there is no financial damage to the copyright owner and no financial gain to the "copyright violater"
But there is financial damage, in the form of value received but not paid for. That's precisely why this whole "information wants to be free" thing is a sham. If you want something that I own, its format notwithstanding, you either accept my offer to pay what I'm asking, or you find something else. You don't just take it. The actual cost of reproduction is completely irrelevant. If it has value, you pay. Pure, simple, market dynamics.
Additionally, in this case, if there is no loss of profit for the artists or record labels, then the claim that Napster represents "fair use" is strengthened a bit.
Are you suggesting that if I write a song and release it for purchase by the public, that I lose all manner of choice with respect to the means of distribution - that by virtue of the fact that you might want it, but I have no say in how you acquire it?
I don't think this is necessasarily true. A couple of things to consider: first, as storage options become ever cheaper, there will be fewer penalties to keeping these images around. Second, there's no telling when you might need an image anyway, or what you might want to use it for in the future - so, keeping it becomes a good way of ensuring that you have what you need. The more I think about this, the more I wonder why a photographer would afford their work any less care than they have with a non-digital medium. Amassing a collection of good pictures requires a serious investment, and I can't see a serious photographer just haphazardly chucking them for the convenience of a little more disk space. Once some of the newer storage formats become more widespread (like the writeable CD in Sony's latest Mavica), this won't even be an issue.
...paying a university a HUGE sum of money that would most likely leave me in debt for years to come, I'd be PISSED! The Universities that are doing this are whoring themselves just like the professional sports franchises - pay the outrageously high ticket prices, and you get the privilege of walking into a non-stop advertising blitz accompanied by a sporting event. Not me!
It seems to me that the MacOS is easy-to-learn, judging by the things the Mac-o-philes tell me.
I would agree that the Mac has a certain intuitiveness about it, but this only last as long as you're doing something familiar. Any time to start getting into specialized applications that are designed to accomplish some very amazing stuff, the issue sometimes isn't realated to the interface, but to the fact that you actually have to learn about what you're doing in order to use it. Boot up a 3D modeling program, and how many people are going to know what vertices, surface normals, or uv coordinates are? You can shield the user from all of this, but then we're right back to where we started...do we make it easy, or do we make it capable?
It's because (at least according to the NYU FAQ), that the Vital Book is nothing more than a piece of software that was developed on, and runs on, the Macintosh. Let's take bets on how long it will take someone to crack this circus wide open.
Many schools have required courses, as do many departmental major programs. Most courses have required reading lists. Given these realities, sutdents do not have the choice to not buy what their professors are pushing.
This is nothing a vigorous student protest couldn't fix.
That companies (like wired) and reasearchers (like forrester) get paid to post articles on the obvious.
I don't thinks it's that obvious at all...in fact, think conjecture is a more appropriate term. There are some dynamics that are far too ingrained into the corporate culture that will make the "takeover" of open source a long ways off, if it happens at all. For starters, there's one key element missing from the open source movement...since no one owns the software, no one is accountable. I doubt seriously that the mainstream corporate world is going to embrace something for which there is no accountability. I will, however, offer this exception...if software companies start getting so greedy and so restrictive (oops...one already has...and we all know who that is), they'll force the issue, making the open source alternative more palatable.
Here's something else to ponder...open source is the way it is now because of the way things are now. Microsoft is the big bad enemy, and Linux is the underdog. Who is to say that the dynamics of open source won't change dramatically if this balance shifts? Right now, open source is a cause. If it hits the mainstream, I posit that it will join the endless clatter of every other mundane process, and since the open source "cause" is no longer an issue, another will have to be identified to take its place.
Slashdot Mirror
I just got done reading an article in this months' issue of Popular Science that discusses three or four up-and-coming robots that will be commercially available. They're a bit pricey at around $4K a pop, BUT...one in particular (irobot, www.irobot.com), even runs LINUX as its OS.
It's called encryption. I can't wait until enryption (no back doors, please) becomes as ubiquitous as a paper envelopes. Let 'em scan THAT.
If Narcivore gets anywhere, what do you bet that ISP's are just a start? The justice department will come up with some *other* lame excuse that there's just no way they can catch all the [insert favorite criminal behavior here] without having access to the backbone. That's why projects like this (or *any* government project, for that matter) needs VERY careful scrutiny before they're ever started. Typically, it's a one-way street - once they start, they only want more, and more, and more (more money, more control, and more time).
I don't drink, smoke or do drugs - coffee (latte, actually) and diet soda are my vices. Part of this comes from being a control freak - or should I say, an in control freak. I'd hate it if I had to submit to the effects of a drug like coke, heroin, ecstacy, or whatever. I can get high enough on all of the interesting things that life has to offer.
It has to do with the fact that Microsoft is so big, so monolithic, so...everywhere, that the threat of stagnation is its own worst enemy. The ONLY way MS can hope to show even a hint that it still has some kind of innovative energy is to BUY it from other companies. Corel now owns Painter, and there is NO WAY IN HELL that MS could manage that kind of innovation on its own. I realize that the agreement focused on MS's ".NET" initiative (something I hope joins some of MS's other failed efforts) - it will be very disconcerting if this agreement allows any kind of implicit influence on other aspects of Corel's business.
It just dawned on me...if this is accurate, any site could make the claim that it has a "one-click" process. it's just a matter of which click it's referring to.
The fact of the matter is that Apple has made some poor choices (the Cube, for example). This announcement makes it somewhat comedic, since Apple is basically saying, "Gee, now you can buy what put us in the dumper with one click, instead of three!" - a real blessing for the stockholders.
The interesting thing about this author/publisher relationship is this: authors, if they care about their success, will evaluate prospective publishers. And as well they should, in order to determine if the manner in which the publisher conducts the production and distribution of their work is in line with their own principles. There's no written rule that says an author *has* to use a publisher that insists on a UCITA-like stranglehold - but if the author chooses to do so anyway, let the chips fall where they may. If they lose their shirt, tough.
Of course, this is predicated on the assumption that consumers will have the fortitude to stand up and refuse to purchase this kind of product. We all know that it doesn't work with music, so maybe it won't work here either. Time will tell.
Come on Billy....do it! I DARE you!
Even if Napster is banned by universities, I'm convinced that Napster will never go away because there are too many people who find it too easy to rationalize, in every way imaginable, the theft of this kind of property. With respect to the aforementioned question, I doubt seriously that "consistency" is a word that will characterize the most common approaches to this issue - including those of the universities themselves. It's rather hypocritical to suggest that some intellectual property ought to be subject to public theft (music), while they retain tight control over their own.
Everytime I'm at the grocery store watching people gleefully fork over their discount card, I wonder if they have any idea about what they're doing. I stopped using my card and started paying cash - the discount just isn't worth it. From the store's perspective, there is no connection between me and what I buy. Some people may wonder, "What's the big deal?" Well, people need to realize that they're PEOPLE, and not just revenue feeds for the commerce machine. I get the feeling that this new approach to marketing wants to turn our society into a mass of pavlovian droids - we advertise, you salivate, and then give us your money.
So what's the alternative? Live in an environment where everything is so shackled and menacled with security measures that using it just isn't worth the hassle?
An artist could create several versions, each with the ad in different places. Not only that, but there's nothing that would prevent them from shortening the length of the song to make room for it. This could make it nearly indistinguishable from the real thing. Muahahahah.....
Now...if people are REALLY serious about showing the RIAA who is boss, STOP BUYING THEIR CDS! I was soooooo amused when I saw earlier that a group was calling for a boycott of the RIAA, as if it was something special. Like, duh.....
Any time a government gets involved in what was once an openly free process, it raises the specter of control. I will concede that government participation played a significant part in the development of the net, but I think now that it's here, we should leave it at that. I'd hate to see open source become the next federal welfare program.
I don't think it's possible to work out all of the bugs in a piece of software, simply because there are too many unseen variables. But I also don't think it's fair to cast software development in a different light merely because it is subject to the same "rules" that govern any complex system. As a means of comparison, consider how long it takes to implement a new commercial aircraft design. Consider how many defense-related projects are, or have been over budget, poorly designed, or scrapped altogether. It was, after all, a hardware "bug" that caused the explosion of the Challenger shuttle. Hell, I'd argue that it's even a hardware "bug" responsible for the Firestone debacle.
Is it fair to hold software development to a different standard? No matter which complex system you're dealing with, it always involves getting from point A to point B, and it's not always going to be an easy ride.
Even in the worst of cases, though, I'm not sure that dissolving a corporation would be a good thing - especially if it's a large one that provides a significant number of jobs. As long as the officers can be tried for criminal intent or criminal activity, this may be sufficient.
So how does taking it without paying make it any better? Sure, it might deprive the "middlemen" of some money, but you're also depriving the artist. And, horror of horrors, what if the artists chooses to distribute their music through these middlemen? Is that not their choice?
The thing that I find really spineless about the "taking without paying" mentality is that the very fact that people are doing this qualfies it as nothing little more than an excuse. If you really want to make a statement, don't buy it, and don't take it. Period. Pure, simple, market dynamics. This is the only clean way to let everyone (the artist, the distributors, etc.) that you are not willing to accept the terms of their offer. If they want to continue to make money, they will find a way to come with terms that are more satisfactory. It never ceases to amaze me the way that consumers have this power, but for lack of a little bit of self-discipline, refuse to put it to work for them.
produce
, that this ought to be reflected in the cost. But there's nothing that prevents me, the artist, from standing up and saying, "I have this song that I wrote, and for $5.00, I'm willing to provide you with a copy." Either it's valuable enough that you'll want to pay the $5.00, or it's not. If the value isn't there, what rational basis exists that affords you the right to take it anyway? Remember...it's not your property.But there is financial damage, in the form of value received but not paid for. That's precisely why this whole "information wants to be free" thing is a sham. If you want something that I own, its format notwithstanding, you either accept my offer to pay what I'm asking, or you find something else. You don't just take it. The actual cost of reproduction is completely irrelevant. If it has value, you pay. Pure, simple, market dynamics. Additionally, in this case, if there is no loss of profit for the artists or record labels, then the claim that Napster represents "fair use" is strengthened a bit.
Are you suggesting that if I write a song and release it for purchase by the public, that I lose all manner of choice with respect to the means of distribution - that by virtue of the fact that you might want it, but I have no say in how you acquire it?
I don't think this is necessasarily true. A couple of things to consider: first, as storage options become ever cheaper, there will be fewer penalties to keeping these images around. Second, there's no telling when you might need an image anyway, or what you might want to use it for in the future - so, keeping it becomes a good way of ensuring that you have what you need. The more I think about this, the more I wonder why a photographer would afford their work any less care than they have with a non-digital medium. Amassing a collection of good pictures requires a serious investment, and I can't see a serious photographer just haphazardly chucking them for the convenience of a little more disk space. Once some of the newer storage formats become more widespread (like the writeable CD in Sony's latest Mavica), this won't even be an issue.
I would agree that the Mac has a certain intuitiveness about it, but this only last as long as you're doing something familiar. Any time to start getting into specialized applications that are designed to accomplish some very amazing stuff, the issue sometimes isn't realated to the interface, but to the fact that you actually have to learn about what you're doing in order to use it. Boot up a 3D modeling program, and how many people are going to know what vertices, surface normals, or uv coordinates are? You can shield the user from all of this, but then we're right back to where we started...do we make it easy, or do we make it capable?
It's because (at least according to the NYU FAQ), that the Vital Book is nothing more than a piece of software that was developed on, and runs on, the Macintosh. Let's take bets on how long it will take someone to crack this circus wide open.
This is nothing a vigorous student protest couldn't fix.
I don't thinks it's that obvious at all...in fact, think conjecture is a more appropriate term. There are some dynamics that are far too ingrained into the corporate culture that will make the "takeover" of open source a long ways off, if it happens at all. For starters, there's one key element missing from the open source movement...since no one owns the software, no one is accountable. I doubt seriously that the mainstream corporate world is going to embrace something for which there is no accountability. I will, however, offer this exception...if software companies start getting so greedy and so restrictive (oops...one already has...and we all know who that is), they'll force the issue, making the open source alternative more palatable.
Here's something else to ponder...open source is the way it is now because of the way things are now. Microsoft is the big bad enemy, and Linux is the underdog. Who is to say that the dynamics of open source won't change dramatically if this balance shifts? Right now, open source is a cause. If it hits the mainstream, I posit that it will join the endless clatter of every other mundane process, and since the open source "cause" is no longer an issue, another will have to be identified to take its place.