Anyone who is in doubt about what Gray Davis has done to California need look no further. Excessive regulations harm all industries (not just growing/developing ones).
VB.NET is equivalent to C#. Both of these were created as an incremental step forward; just as Java has some advantages over C++, the new.NET languages have some advantages over Java. I don't know where Python fits into the continuum.
Very cool comments. I think you're right about the inevitable characteristics (openness, decentralization, soft-lock) of a successful system.
I wonder if there would be a way to create hardware DRM at the portable storage level, to make the lock a bit stronger... do you think this kind of thing would be easily breakable as well?
When you think about it, the licensing and "product activation" features of something like Windows XP represents an optimal form of DRM... there are lots of hacks on the internet, but probably 95% of users comply with the licensing terms.
You make some very good points. Interestingly, a lot of Slashdot readers seem to support extensive government intervention. In these days of massive and inexpensive information, certification becomes far more efficient than licensure, and also has the effect of automatically becoming meaningless if for some reason people no longer care... Nobody ever builds time limits into laws that congress passes..:)
Your public key idea sounds like it has potential. Though it seems to me that the file would need to be disabled until the person paid for it. The public key would allow the payment to be routed properly and would also unlock the file.
That's actually a very interesting idea, because (at least in my interpretation) it couples the concept of DRM with the concept of non-proprietary distribution. It would have a number of very cool side-effects, among which are:
It would facilitate the decoupling of music creators and music promoters. Right now you don't even get to record your album unless there is a marketing plan in place, but with this idea you could record it, distribute it, and if it took off you would end up with a lot of micropayments in your bank account.
I still think that there'd need to be room for promoters and people who specialize in marketing music... but who knows, that phenomenon could be replaced by recommenders that simply helped consumers identify music that they were very likely to enjoy. movielens.umn.edu does this for movies and it's definitely increased the level of enjoyment that I obtain from the cinema.
When you think about it, it used to be that artists had to go to a recording studio and to a promoter -- a "label" -- because there wasn't any other distribution mechanism... You had albums and radio. Now, digital recording technology is so inexpensive that nearly anyone can put together a decent recording with only a few thousand dollars in off-the-shelf equipment and some simple know-how with a mixer and very basic post-production techniques.
So one question that comes to mind is, what would they play on the radio, and how would artists make money from it? I suppose something like that could be incorporated into the DRM so that if you were a radio station you had to 'buy' more than just one 'play' every time you played a song.
The interesting thing would be that some songs would cost more or less than others, and prices would likely fluctuate, since artists would want to make as much money as possible. That might require some kind of central clearing system, but it could be done relatively easily, especially if prices would move day to day rather than minute to minute.
Wow, you've really got me thinking here... I prefer thinking of cool alternatives to defending the RIAA...:)
Only one comment after the privileged Slashdot Subscribers have had their say? That tells me that there are about 3 subscribers!
Anyway... as a libertarian, I prefer certification to licensure. Certification toward the goal of anti-terrorism will likely help some software companies sell software to the government. It also may shed light on some requirements that woudln't necessarily be obvious were they not outlined in the cert requirements.
You are right if I would have created either one for my own purpose, but if I decided to create in order to make a profit, they are still identical, since infringement/theft deprives me of the expected profit from my endevour. One could argue that the market accounts for ease of replication in pricing, thus making the ROI for creating a birdhouse roughly similar to the ROI for creating software, assuming that demand was similar.
Ok... sit down at your computer and write some very useful code... spend about 2 years doing it... then publish it on your website along with your name and picture.
Wouldn't it make you happy to receive $0.00 for your effort, but to have Bill Gates mention you by name on national television in the same sentence as he mentions the fact that Microsoft made $10,000,000 on it in the first 6 months?
Not a bad series of points. Much better than those made by most people. But I do have a few gripes:
You and I agree that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with p2p, but that filesharing copyrighted works is wrong.
You and I agree that the Recording industry has bought some politicians. In my opinion, when companies would rather spend money in Washington than in R&D, there is something seriously wrong with our legislative system. Wrong with the RIAA? Nope, they're just responding to pols who are willing to be bought. We see the same thing with the steel industry, the AMA, the NRA, the ABA, etc. In general our congress loves regulating things b/c that way people come to them offering incentives and campaign contributions. I bring this up becuase people erroneously blame the RIAA, which is obviously an entity devoted to helping its members. If things were different, the RIAA might have evolved into a group that produced software standards, but instead it became a lobbying organization.
You interestingly mention copyright as a replacement for patronage. Patronage is still alive and well in our society and it is a good thing. Patronage matches people with money with people with skills/ideas, and allows both to mutually benefit. In fact, the much-criticized institution known as the corporation is at its core a way of organizing people economically for their mutual benefit, in a way that is greater than any individual could do alone.
It doesn't matter if copying a copyrighted work is "better" or "worse" than stealing property, and a lot depends on the property you're comparing it to and the market value for the information vs the piece of property. There is no way to draw a distinction about this on the sole basis of the kind of information contained in the copyrighted material.
I think we both agree that the Recording Industry is a dinosaur. However I think people should figure out a way to replace it rather than just complaining about how inefficient it is.
I like the quote. I particularly like the part at the bottom:
Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body.
What is the difference between "society giving exclusive right to profits... " and society giving an individual exclusive right to profits from the sale of his physical property?
Jefferson's point is that copyright protection should not be too extensive, but that some should exist in order to reward innovators. That is my position too. If you create a copyrightable work, you may bury it, sell it, or keep it to yourself, just as you could with a bag full of gold that you owned.
The only relevant difference is in the manner of sale: With a copyrighted work, you are selling copies, while with the gold you are selling part of the original quantity. Copyright law comes into play because it sets limits around the (limited)extent to which someone can be guaranteed to be able to sell copies.
That may be, but you haven't answered the question of how there is a practical difference in what it means for commerce. Anyone can harp on some wording in a supreme court decision, but what is falling through the cracks is the fact that for all intents and purposes, despite the differences in their origin, copyright law and property ownership are the same thing, when applied to commerce during the term of a copyright.
If you sit down with a bunch of wood and nails, you could end up with a birdhouse.
If you sit down with a computer and gcc, you could end up with software.
My question is, from the standpoint of commerce, during the copyright term, what is the difference? Sure, there is a difference in the origin of the concepts, but not in the practical implications of them for commerce.
All you did is repeat the whole "they are not from the same legal origin" line, which is slightly better (but not much better) than the "they're different words" argument that someone offered earlier.
So then what is the practical difference between having exclusive rights to distribute something and actually owning it? This really ammuses me, because there is no practical difference.
Your statements are an example of an argument about an arcane detail of the precise legal meaning of words. Copyright law exists to protect something that someone has created and now, as a virtue of that creative act, owns. Property rights exist to protect what someone owns. Notice the similarity there?
The point is, it's not up to you to decide how the material is distributed, nor is it up to you to decide the price. When you decide to attempt to do either one of those things, you risk suffering the legal penalties.
You may disapprove of copyright law (or the concept of private property for that matter), but if you do, the way to change things isn't to blatantly violate the law, but to create alternatives that law-abiding citizens can participate in that work better. So far all I've heard you do is take the easy way out and condone violation of the existing laws. It must be fun in never never land.
Corporations aren't evil, they are just a bunch of people getting together for collaborative economic activity. They are to making money what clubs and social organizations are to making friends.
You should not fault companies for wanting to prevent unauthorized theft and (free) distribution of their products.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh. I realize that, but the parent post to mine referred to the gasket...
Anyone who is in doubt about what Gray Davis has done to California need look no further. Excessive regulations harm all industries (not just growing/developing ones).
How does the rubber gasket on a Microwave Oven door block RF? I'm also an Extra Class ham and that'd be a new concept for me.
It must be that Apple has finally made enough changes to the Mach microkernel that OSX is beginning to act like OS9, OS8, and OS7.
As I read the headline all I could think was I sure am glad I insisted that my mom not throw out my old Apple //c and peripherals...
You forgot Gray Davis.
VB.NET is equivalent to C#. Both of these were created as an incremental step forward; just as Java has some advantages over C++, the new .NET languages have some advantages over Java. I don't know where Python fits into the continuum.
I think you're smoking crack. VS6, once you installed SP5, was at least stable... but it had a bunch of odd and counterintuitive quirks...
VS.NET is awesome. If you have not tried 2003, try it. They took away a few of the rough edges that were on the first release.
Very cool comments. I think you're right about the inevitable characteristics (openness, decentralization, soft-lock) of a successful system.
I wonder if there would be a way to create hardware DRM at the portable storage level, to make the lock a bit stronger... do you think this kind of thing would be easily breakable as well?
When you think about it, the licensing and "product activation" features of something like Windows XP represents an optimal form of DRM... there are lots of hacks on the internet, but probably 95% of users comply with the licensing terms.
You make some very good points. Interestingly, a lot of Slashdot readers seem to support extensive government intervention. In these days of massive and inexpensive information, certification becomes far more efficient than licensure, and also has the effect of automatically becoming meaningless if for some reason people no longer care... Nobody ever builds time limits into laws that congress passes.. :)
That's actually a very interesting idea, because (at least in my interpretation) it couples the concept of DRM with the concept of non-proprietary distribution. It would have a number of very cool side-effects, among which are:
It would facilitate the decoupling of music creators and music promoters. Right now you don't even get to record your album unless there is a marketing plan in place, but with this idea you could record it, distribute it, and if it took off you would end up with a lot of micropayments in your bank account.
:)
I still think that there'd need to be room for promoters and people who specialize in marketing music... but who knows, that phenomenon could be replaced by recommenders that simply helped consumers identify music that they were very likely to enjoy. movielens.umn.edu does this for movies and it's definitely increased the level of enjoyment that I obtain from the cinema.
When you think about it, it used to be that artists had to go to a recording studio and to a promoter -- a "label" -- because there wasn't any other distribution mechanism... You had albums and radio. Now, digital recording technology is so inexpensive that nearly anyone can put together a decent recording with only a few thousand dollars in off-the-shelf equipment and some simple know-how with a mixer and very basic post-production techniques.
So one question that comes to mind is, what would they play on the radio, and how would artists make money from it? I suppose something like that could be incorporated into the DRM so that if you were a radio station you had to 'buy' more than just one 'play' every time you played a song.
The interesting thing would be that some songs would cost more or less than others, and prices would likely fluctuate, since artists would want to make as much money as possible. That might require some kind of central clearing system, but it could be done relatively easily, especially if prices would move day to day rather than minute to minute.
Wow, you've really got me thinking here... I prefer thinking of cool alternatives to defending the RIAA...
Only one comment after the privileged Slashdot Subscribers have had their say? That tells me that there are about 3 subscribers!
Anyway... as a libertarian, I prefer certification to licensure. Certification toward the goal of anti-terrorism will likely help some software companies sell software to the government. It also may shed light on some requirements that woudln't necessarily be obvious were they not outlined in the cert requirements.
You are right if I would have created either one for my own purpose, but if I decided to create in order to make a profit, they are still identical, since infringement/theft deprives me of the expected profit from my endevour. One could argue that the market accounts for ease of replication in pricing, thus making the ROI for creating a birdhouse roughly similar to the ROI for creating software, assuming that demand was similar.
But then what do you make of Jefferson's mention of right to profit?
Ok... sit down at your computer and write some very useful code... spend about 2 years doing it... then publish it on your website along with your name and picture.
Wouldn't it make you happy to receive $0.00 for your effort, but to have Bill Gates mention you by name on national television in the same sentence as he mentions the fact that Microsoft made $10,000,000 on it in the first 6 months?
Not a bad series of points. Much better than those made by most people. But I do have a few gripes:
You and I agree that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with p2p, but that filesharing copyrighted works is wrong.
You and I agree that the Recording industry has bought some politicians. In my opinion, when companies would rather spend money in Washington than in R&D, there is something seriously wrong with our legislative system. Wrong with the RIAA? Nope, they're just responding to pols who are willing to be bought. We see the same thing with the steel industry, the AMA, the NRA, the ABA, etc. In general our congress loves regulating things b/c that way people come to them offering incentives and campaign contributions. I bring this up becuase people erroneously blame the RIAA, which is obviously an entity devoted to helping its members. If things were different, the RIAA might have evolved into a group that produced software standards, but instead it became a lobbying organization.
You interestingly mention copyright as a replacement for patronage. Patronage is still alive and well in our society and it is a good thing. Patronage matches people with money with people with skills/ideas, and allows both to mutually benefit. In fact, the much-criticized institution known as the corporation is at its core a way of organizing people economically for their mutual benefit, in a way that is greater than any individual could do alone.
It doesn't matter if copying a copyrighted work is "better" or "worse" than stealing property, and a lot depends on the property you're comparing it to and the market value for the information vs the piece of property. There is no way to draw a distinction about this on the sole basis of the kind of information contained in the copyrighted material.
I think we both agree that the Recording Industry is a dinosaur. However I think people should figure out a way to replace it rather than just complaining about how inefficient it is.
I like the quote. I particularly like the part at the bottom:
Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body.
What is the difference between "society giving exclusive right to profits... " and society giving an individual exclusive right to profits from the sale of his physical property?
Jefferson's point is that copyright protection should not be too extensive, but that some should exist in order to reward innovators. That is my position too. If you create a copyrightable work, you may bury it, sell it, or keep it to yourself, just as you could with a bag full of gold that you owned.
The only relevant difference is in the manner of sale: With a copyrighted work, you are selling copies, while with the gold you are selling part of the original quantity. Copyright law comes into play because it sets limits around the (limited)extent to which someone can be guaranteed to be able to sell copies.
That may be, but you haven't answered the question of how there is a practical difference in what it means for commerce. Anyone can harp on some wording in a supreme court decision, but what is falling through the cracks is the fact that for all intents and purposes, despite the differences in their origin, copyright law and property ownership are the same thing, when applied to commerce during the term of a copyright.
If you sit down with a bunch of wood and nails, you could end up with a birdhouse.
If you sit down with a computer and gcc, you could end up with software.
My question is, from the standpoint of commerce, during the copyright term, what is the difference? Sure, there is a difference in the origin of the concepts, but not in the practical implications of them for commerce.
All you did is repeat the whole "they are not from the same legal origin" line, which is slightly better (but not much better) than the "they're different words" argument that someone offered earlier.
Uh, that is pretty obvious. Is there any practical difference during the copyright term?
What is the practical difference? [long pause]
You may have a point there... My point is only that for all practical purposes for commerce, copyright is equivalent to property rights in many ways.
So then what is the practical difference between having exclusive rights to distribute something and actually owning it? This really ammuses me, because there is no practical difference.
Your statements are an example of an argument about an arcane detail of the precise legal meaning of words. Copyright law exists to protect something that someone has created and now, as a virtue of that creative act, owns. Property rights exist to protect what someone owns. Notice the similarity there?
The point is, it's not up to you to decide how the material is distributed, nor is it up to you to decide the price. When you decide to attempt to do either one of those things, you risk suffering the legal penalties.
You may disapprove of copyright law (or the concept of private property for that matter), but if you do, the way to change things isn't to blatantly violate the law, but to create alternatives that law-abiding citizens can participate in that work better. So far all I've heard you do is take the easy way out and condone violation of the existing laws. It must be fun in never never land.
Corporations aren't evil, they are just a bunch of people getting together for collaborative economic activity. They are to making money what clubs and social organizations are to making friends.
You should not fault companies for wanting to prevent unauthorized theft and (free) distribution of their products.