I guess the opposite it's more true: "Where do we have a right to prevent someone to copy anything?".
If you want something not to be copied, you simply do not release it to the public.
Copyright is not a natural right, but a granted law monopoly, in fact originally designed to favour spreading of information; nowadays it's used to the opposite.
I agree completely. I do the same every week: no social life, working 10-12 hours a day, a great hotel is just a place where you sleep and take showers.
Traveling from time to time is fine. Doing it continuosly is insane.
Oh, it's easy to solve the traveling salesman problem: you just need to prove that P=NP.
Until that, since TSP is NP-Complete, there's no way to do deterministically on large data sets: it's computationally intractable (and, i guess, Google Maps data set it's *definitely* huge:-) )
>While these codecs that are proposed are FREE, they are not widely supported. >
Neither AAC, apart from iTunes support, really is. The really widespread audio codecs on the web are, AFAIK and IMHO, MP3 and (God forgive us) WMA.
About video: MPEG4/ASP is the most widespread one. Followed by, in "particular contexts" (porn), WMV and MPEG1/2. Not H264, which is *not* used in the most part of youtube videos you're used to look at: they're encoded in the (proprietary, not royalty free, AFAIK widespread *only* in flash video) On2'VP7 codec. H264 is supported (late addition, originally just VP7 was), but is not the most widespread one (also because is *very* CPU intensive, compared to other codecs available - honestly, that's because is also far more advanced than many others).
>Firstly, Nokia wants complete ecosystem, where content of the future is available on the web now. >
Very good. A royalty-free, documented, with a free implementation available, codec seems to me (and i guess many others) the best solution to ensure that tomorrow you're going to be able to still play the videos of today.
>We have YouTube. Do you really think they are going to convert their whole digital library to Ogg just because some company proposed it as their next standard. No. Nokia just wants to leverage the power W3C has to make it promote the file formats it already supports.
I don't think youtube's lacking processing horsepower to convert their videos. And, most significantly, it's not something i should be concerned with while defining a standard: Youtube it's not the Web.
>AAC is used in iTunes library. Nothing more is needed. > Apart from iTunes. Not avalaible on every system. And counting many megabytes of software to download. Do you want to play Ogg Vorbis+Theora instead? Just grab the codecs. For free. Install them (on Windows, click "Next", "Next", "Next", and you're done). As a comparison (on windows): 1) iTunes: more than 40MB of sw to download. 2) Ogg: just get these (http://www.illiminable.com/ogg/), less than 1 MB, and you're done. On *every* player you like, not just iTunes.
>If these formats become accepted, devices can support the technology NOW, and be ready for the future, where more content is coming in these formats. > About Ogg vorbis, there's already available an integer math only implementation (good for integrated circuits implementation, where floating point math isn't a good idea...). Don't know about Theora, but i don't think implementing it in hardware is way more complicated than H264 or others (BTW, Theora is an On2'codec: i guess they have implementations already available).
>Secondly, I think Nokia has licensed all this stuff from Apple and other organizations, so they don't have to >a) Buy new licenses Neither they do with Ogg. And this doesn't force anyone who wants to produce audio/video content to do as Nokia did and go buying expensive licenses. (BTW, i don't mind how Nokia spends money: i guess is their problem, not a Web one).
>b) Write new software With Ogg, you can use the one already available for free, if you wish.
>c) Use any code that can cause potential licensing problems (GPL is a no-no, if you run a propietary solution) > Linux Kernel can use proprietary drivers (see NVIDIA). So why they can't do the opposite and use a free software in their proprietary solution? They're not necessarily going to link it with every other piece of software they wrote, forcing them to release all under GPL, after all... And, BTW, Ogg specs are available for free: pay two programmers and let them build your own decoder.
>The other options (some really old stuff, where patents have expired) , kinda succested this. Nobody is going to fill the web with stuff done with codecs older than themselves. MP3 being the only exceptio, but if I read correctly, that won't be available free until 2011. This was simply nonsense IMHO, i guess he had nothing else to write and then filled that terrible paper with such a bunch of junk.
AlbertoP and the other one above citing corriere.it article are forgetting how facts actually evolved:
1) Draft law has been approved October, 12th
2) First on-line concernments exploded October, 19th
3) Asked about that, Mr Levi first replied: "It's not up to the government to establish that. It'll be for the Communications Authority to indicate with regulations, which people and which companies will have to register. And the regulations will arrive only after the law has been discussed and approved by the Lower House." - in other words "I don't care too much about what could happen to web sites and blogs. Eventually, someone other will fix (later) what i'm breaking (now)."
4) After many politicians expressed serious concern about the draft, and literally menaced to leave the government coalition (see: Antonio di Pietro's Blog - October, 20th) Mr Levi suddenly "changed opinion", releasing the interview AlbertoP refers to, in date October 23rd!!
So, the REAL STORY is:
Mr Levi has been caught with hands in the jam and immediately changed opinion. Wouldn't have been so, we in Italy were going to be mass-censored - exactly as posted by nx!
Slashdot Mirror
...could find one or two alternative uses for it... :-)
I guess the opposite it's more true: "Where do we have a right to prevent someone to copy anything?".
If you want something not to be copied, you simply do not release it to the public.
Copyright is not a natural right, but a granted law monopoly, in fact originally designed to favour spreading of information; nowadays it's used to the opposite.
I agree completely.
I do the same every week: no social life, working 10-12 hours a day, a great hotel is just a place where you sleep and take showers.
Traveling from time to time is fine. Doing it continuosly is insane.
F**ked job travels :-)
Definitely stone.
The only media demonstrated surviving more than 2k years... and counting.
I admit it's not very portable, but hey, here we're talking about durability.
Oh, it's easy to solve the traveling salesman problem: you just need to prove that P=NP.
:-) )
Until that, since TSP is NP-Complete, there's no way to do deterministically on large data sets: it's computationally intractable (and, i guess, Google Maps data set it's *definitely* huge
>While these codecs that are proposed are FREE, they are not widely supported.
>
Neither AAC, apart from iTunes support, really is.
The really widespread audio codecs on the web are, AFAIK and IMHO, MP3 and (God forgive us) WMA.
About video: MPEG4/ASP is the most widespread one. Followed by, in "particular contexts" (porn), WMV and MPEG1/2.
Not H264, which is *not* used in the most part of youtube videos you're used to look at: they're encoded in the (proprietary, not royalty free, AFAIK widespread *only* in flash video) On2'VP7 codec. H264 is supported (late addition, originally just VP7 was), but is not the most widespread one (also because is *very* CPU intensive, compared to other codecs available - honestly, that's because is also far more advanced than many others).
>Firstly, Nokia wants complete ecosystem, where content of the future is available on the web now.
>
Very good. A royalty-free, documented, with a free implementation available, codec seems to me (and i guess many others) the best solution to ensure that tomorrow you're going to be able to still play the videos of today.
>We have YouTube. Do you really think they are going to convert their whole digital library to Ogg just because some company proposed it as their next standard. No. Nokia just wants to leverage the power W3C has to make it promote the file formats it already supports.
I don't think youtube's lacking processing horsepower to convert their videos. And, most significantly, it's not something i should be concerned with while defining a standard: Youtube it's not the Web.
>AAC is used in iTunes library. Nothing more is needed.
>
Apart from iTunes. Not avalaible on every system. And counting many megabytes of software to download.
Do you want to play Ogg Vorbis+Theora instead? Just grab the codecs. For free. Install them (on Windows, click "Next", "Next", "Next", and you're done).
As a comparison (on windows):
1) iTunes: more than 40MB of sw to download.
2) Ogg: just get these (http://www.illiminable.com/ogg/), less than 1 MB, and you're done. On *every* player you like, not just iTunes.
>If these formats become accepted, devices can support the technology NOW, and be ready for the future, where more content is coming in these formats.
>
About Ogg vorbis, there's already available an integer math only implementation (good for integrated circuits implementation, where floating point math isn't a good idea...). Don't know about Theora, but i don't think implementing it in hardware is way more complicated than H264 or others (BTW, Theora is an On2'codec: i guess they have implementations already available).
>Secondly, I think Nokia has licensed all this stuff from Apple and other organizations, so they don't have to
>a) Buy new licenses
Neither they do with Ogg. And this doesn't force anyone who wants to produce audio/video content to do as Nokia did and go buying expensive licenses. (BTW, i don't mind how Nokia spends money: i guess is their problem, not a Web one).
>b) Write new software
With Ogg, you can use the one already available for free, if you wish.
>c) Use any code that can cause potential licensing problems (GPL is a no-no, if you run a propietary solution)
>
Linux Kernel can use proprietary drivers (see NVIDIA). So why they can't do the opposite and use a free software in their proprietary solution? They're not necessarily going to link it with every other piece of software they wrote, forcing them to release all under GPL, after all...
And, BTW, Ogg specs are available for free: pay two programmers and let them build your own decoder.
>The other options (some really old stuff, where patents have expired) , kinda succested this. Nobody is going to fill the web with stuff done with codecs older than themselves. MP3 being the only exceptio, but if I read correctly, that won't be available free until 2011.
This was simply nonsense IMHO, i guess he had nothing else to write and then filled that terrible paper with such a bunch of junk.
AlbertoP and the other one above citing corriere.it article are forgetting how facts actually evolved:
1) Draft law has been approved October, 12th
2) First on-line concernments exploded October, 19th
3) Asked about that, Mr Levi first replied: "It's not up to the government to establish that. It'll be for the Communications Authority to indicate with regulations, which people and which companies will have to register. And the regulations will arrive only after the law has been discussed and approved by the Lower House." - in other words "I don't care too much about what could happen to web sites and blogs. Eventually, someone other will fix (later) what i'm breaking (now)."
4) After many politicians expressed serious concern about the draft, and literally menaced to leave the government coalition (see: Antonio di Pietro's Blog - October, 20th) Mr Levi suddenly "changed opinion", releasing the interview AlbertoP refers to, in date October 23rd!!
So, the REAL STORY is:
Mr Levi has been caught with hands in the jam and immediately changed opinion. Wouldn't have been so, we in Italy were going to be mass-censored - exactly as posted by nx!
Cheers, Feanor.