This is really a semantic argument, though you are wrong on both counts.
You are mostly correct, I have to point out that we do, in fact, know that a certain subsets of MD5 hashes are one-way. You obviously can't generate a three megabyte file from its 32 byte MD5 checksum.
A one way hash is simply a function that converts a given input into some fixed length output and is hard to reverse, i.e., to generate some input that will match a given hash. The mere fact that the hash is much smaller than the input does not mean that is it one way. In the first place, the term describes the properties of the function itself, not a relationship between a particular input and output, and a good function is universal. Furthermore, even in cases where the hash is much smaller than the input, the trivial reversal (since your implied definition would not preclude this on the basis that the hash is too small) of the function could be used to describe the input or trivially generate all possible inputs (without having to brute force from the other direction). This poor definition would be sufficient in many applications to defeat its purpose. For instance, I could search all the (much larger) inputs that match a given hash for the exact input that the hash was generated against, e.g., search for english words, search for known songs, modify some crappy noise to match, etc.
If it was one-way, in fact, the 'brute force a duplicate MD5' wouldn't work, either, because there couldn't be any others
Wrong again. One-way says nothing about there being a One-to-One correlation; it merely describes the direction, i.e., that it's easy to go from input to output (hash), but very hard to go from output to input.
Your understanding of the term is obviously deeply flawed because you contradict yourself. You can't, one one hand, say that MD5 is one way because there can't be any other inputs to match the hash and, on the other hand, say that md5 is a one-way hash in some cases because you "obviously can't generate a three megabyte file from its 32 byte MD5 checksum". If there is a one to one relationship between a 32byte hash and a larger input, even if it is 1 gigabyte (not impossible in an arbitrary function for a few inputs, though likely poor), then you could, by definition, generate a unique input based on that hash. It may take you a zillion years (or 5 seconds with your implied weak defintion), but you could do it. [A very crappy one-way function might do this with a select few inputs too, but obviously not for all] Please do some more research. Thanks.
Just like we might find a way to easily find the prime factors of huge composite numbers. Which would render public key cryptography useless. But mathematicians smarter than us seem to think this is not likely. So your suggestion that it might happen doesn't mean much. After all, we might find a way to travel faster than light.
But you said never.
All you have to do to proove that a program could be written that could break MD5 is to post two tiny blocks of data which have the same MD5 hash. Basically the same simple test I would offer to anyone claiming a perpetual motion machine. Simply demonstrate it. If you break MD5 you could be famous.
But I never said that I could do it in a reasonable amount of time. I just said that I (or anyone really) could do it given enough time. That is not controversial in the least.
It is a given that something else will generate the same hash. I agreed with this point in your earlier post. It is just finding it that is the problem. If the RIAA wants to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to build a machine that might possibly find a block of data that hashes to the same hash as one mp3 file, then I would be right there cheering them on.
Well I wasn't the earlier poster. I'm not implying that it's practical for RIAA to attempt to brute force MD5 keys. I was just responding to your particular language, which is very different than what you are saying now. I was not implying that it would be practical for RIAA to set about breaking these keys. However, the fact is that they really wouldn't need to. There is really no framework that would necessitate this sort of attack. People aren't actively searching with MD5 by and large; most of the networks don't support it and the users really don't know how to use it and even if they did obtaining a dependable source to validate files that are actually addressable on the network would remain a problem. These networks might respond, but then they'd be at least tacitly acknowledging that they are about active copyright violation and not about alternative distribution and all the other sorts of nonsense that they've advocated. What's more, this system of trust would necessitate some form of centralization to distribute those files and sign them and that would create a target for law enforcement and the industry. For instance, if 99% of people are downloading with a relatively small range of hashes and the network is built to support them, then it is certainly reasonable to ask that they be filtered. It also would create a much easier way to bust servers and clients through automated technolog, i.e., no more string matching, music matching, etc. necessary, just a simple checksum that can be searched for and positively identified (with the checksum alone for high certainty, with a copy of the file for absolute certainty)
As to your hypothesis that MD5 can be broken, you may be right. Maybe it will be. But I wouldn't hold my breath.
Actually, if you want to be technical, there is respected research that md5 can at least be bent, so that the data can be slightly modified, and still yield the same MD5 sum in about 24 days on average with a 10 million dollar machine (in 1994). See van Oorschot and M.J. Wiener, Parallel Collision Search with Application to Hash Functions and Discrete Logarithms. It stands to reason that this machine would very affordable in 50 years and could do it even faster.
A key principal of cryptography is that you pick key lengths and algorithms that remain unbroken not just based on today's technology, but based on tomorrow's technology and how long the secrecy of the data remains important.
I don't deny that MD5, other one way hashes, and asymetrical crypto are extremely valuable. I recognize that the delay and the effort required to actually break them makes theft or tampering a practically unfeasible viable activity. I was just responding to your statement that it was essentially impossible to break or crack md5 in any amount of time. Sorry, but if you meant something else, then you should have been a little more clear.
Where I think you are confused is about the nature of MD5.
MD5 is not just another hash function. It is cryptographically secure. This means that you will never ever, in the life of the universe, be able to find nor contrive / construct a file with an identical hash. That is the whole point of MD5. Otherwise digital signatures and certificates would be meaningless.
This is not quite true.
Firstly, MD5 is just a one way hash. That hash can be and is often signed to prove that the hash was generated by some trusted party. However, if the hash itself is broken, then validating with it any signature, regardless of how secure it is, is by definition meaningless. See MD4 and others.
Secondly, we only presume MD5 to be a good one way hash--there is no absolute proof that it is. There might be some novel approach that we just don't know about yet.
Thirdly, by definition, no one-way hash can rule out the possiblity of brute forcing the hash by throwing enough stuff at it with the hope that something else will generate the same hash. In other words, we KNOW there exist other inputs that will generate the exact same hash result because the hash cannot possibly describe a unique input given that it is much much shorter. We only believe that it would be very hard to generate some other (reasonable) input to match a specific target hash. For instance, for some known hash I probably cannot generate an input that will match it and I especially cannot hope to generate one that is apt to resemble what I intend to pass my package off as. However, given enough computer time, I can certainly generate SOME file (even if it is ugly) that will match your MD5 hash (and pass your signature with flying colors). In 50 years even there is every reason to think that this would be a trivial task.
"When you look at all the expolits in commercial software and then compare them to the amount found in free software you will see what I mean..."
You mention no numbers nor any sort of basis for comparison. Could it be that commercial software merely gets more reports because it has a larger user base and not that it has more exploits? OR maybe there are far more exploits in "free" software but people overlook them or don't catch them. "I used to be a big Microsoft fan until I looked at all the money I save with free Gnu/BSD/linux software and now I never look back."
How does this have anything to do with exploits? Do you save money because your software was being hacked all the time or something like that? If not this sentence does not fit with the remainder of your statement.
Hi. You got trolled and it was a rather obvious one at that. Heh.
As one of my lateral posters commented, consultants tend to be anything but "serious business types". I'm not familiar with this particular CEO, but I'd hardly expect him, on the basis of his position with Accenture, to be really familiar with business operations. Also, WebVan "only" managed to raise about 400m. While that's a whole lot of money, it's a far cry short from 1b. You're almost certainly referring to their market capitalization (which at some point exceeded 1b), but that's a very different thing all together.
Network effects
on
F'd Companies
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Slashdot? Slashdot's design is fine, judging by the ridiculously high user IDs we see, not to mention the sheer capacity of its users to bring any site in existance to its knees.
If Slashdot's design was so horrible, people wouldn't use it. Maybe in the early days when there was no equivalent, people were stuck here.. The fact remains, however, that no one worries about the 'kuro5hin effect'.
As for business sense.. CmdrTaco, Hemos and everyone else's hobby is being effectively sponsored by a largely visible name in the open source world. Sure, the Slashdot crew isn't in it for profit - but ending up with the deal they have isn't too shabby. Would that actual business people had the sense they did.;)
I disagree. Just because slashdot (and many other entities) are large and relatively popular does not mean that they are particularly good or even just not mediocre. People may be technically free to move on the other alternatives, but with a product or service like this there is something known as a network effect. When many other people use the product or service (or ~90% in this particular niche) that is its primary value. Even though competing alternatives may be superior in every way, in and of themselves, the fact is that it can be very hard to coordinate a sufficiently large movement of people to a single standard/product/service/etc. For instance, do I really want to post to kuro5hin when no one else, or at least no one more in the main stream, will read me? Do I really want to read kuro5hin when there are few people posting? Do I really feel compelled to reply on kuro5hin to an article or comment that I disagree with (for the sake of other readers? Note: I'm not saying kuru5hin is the be all and end all, from what little i've seen of it it is too complex and silly for mass popularity.
In slashdot's particular case, I happen to think that the design of their backend is rather inefficient (it was a hack and it seems to still be), their frontend could use a lot of work, their moderation system could be improved upon without much added complexity, their editing is just plain horrendous, their bias spills over unnecessarily in many cases, and what little original content that they do produce is unimpressive at best. In short, they're mismanaged and they're missing out on a lot of opportunity. Slashdot, as it stands today and has always been, is nothing more than some hacked together scripts, some hardware, sloppy editing/administration, and a lot of popularity amongst young techies. It could be much better if they were a little smarter and worked a lot harder.
In the west, "land use" and "property rights" fights have been going on for decades. "How dare the damn new world order guvment tell me I can't do what I want with my own land! I own it! That gives me the absolute God-given right to stripmine it to the center of the earth and fill the hole with toxic waste if want to, by gum!" I've known ranchers who hold views this extreme. I've known ranchers who literally plowed up access roads on their property because the state passed a law saying that through-roads (roads connecting one publicly accessible road to another) had to be publicly accessible.
While I cannot comment on these particular ranchers, I will say that I've seen a number of situations sort of like this, but where the home owners are very much in the right. For instance, in Southern California there's something called the Coastal Commission that has rather broad power to regulate, that is not elected, and will force a number of absurd restrictions on home owners with beach front property. Mind you, the commission tends to be very left leaning and the owners tend to be wealthy (at least in the minds of the commision), which creates an us versus them mentality. For example, if you to do some minor remodeling, you are required to seek approval from the Coastal Commission, but when you do that, they say that the only way that you can do anything is if you put an easement through your property (from the street down to the beach) so that people can access the beach a little more easily (in many cases, the difference is only a couple hundred feet). While such a request may sound reasonable on its face, the state will not absolve you of liability if someone slips and falls on the easement, the state will not patrol it, will not cover your costs, will not clean up litter resulting from the parked cars, and so on--in essence it creates a legal and logistical nightmare for many home owners who happen to be wealthy (e.g., big targets for ambulance chasers).
The moral here is that just because something is nominally in the public interest does not mean that it is, does not mean that it is reasonable, and does not mean that working around the law is always so wrong (sometimes it is the lesser or two evils). I do not necessarily judge the ranchers here to be in the wrong and the government in the right.
But that's not his point. The point is that every 20 years Disney is gonna call up their totally owned senators and representatives, give them a couple hundred thousand in campaign contributions, and next thing you know, copyright is extended for another 20 years.
Remember, here in the United States, you don't have to register works to get copyright protection - so they don't have to do anything - they can just sit on the library of 'owned' works, and when in 500 years, for some reason the Uncle Remus stuff becomes acceptable again (ok, not likely) - they can whip it back out. As a result, nothing of our culture's history becomes owned by our culture....ever again...from 1923 on.
Yes - registering copyrights again would greatly assist here. But the reality is that you don't have to, and likely never will again.
That is his point, he was responding to mine; I suggested that people that wish to extend copyrights, beyond the current term, should have to either prove that they're continuing to invest in it or pay a fee (e.g., 1M/copyright/yr). The system would be designed for unique cases where a company has built a brand around it, to be distinguished from a trademark, which is the brand itself.
Firstly, the debate isn't over Disney's ability to lobby-the debate is over whether or not THIS particular piece of legislation is right. Secondly, lobbying itself is very expensive and the ability to really do something that is contrary to the public's will is pretty minimal (only when the public turns a blind eye to it or is very mixed can they really do much). Do you really think that Disney is going to spend, say, 100m dollars lobbying to keep, say, Donald Duck for another 200 years when it's no longer relevant to anyone? These things are not going to be worth the investment forever. Only for a select few items (e.g., those which Disney might use to market themselves as a company) that Disney has continued to invest in (because they market themselves with it) have the potential to last for such an extended period of time. Thirdly, if you're going to argue against laws themselves under the assumption that the party in question will just (effectively) ignore them anyways, then it's just silly to argue about laws in the first place.
This sort of fallacy is often propogated on Slashdot, generally by people that have never and probably never will have a marked contribution to society, but rather serve as equally pointless, if not more so, an existence than the role they find superfluous.
Without the labors of farmers, there are no meats, milk, or grains with which to produce consumable food. Without the proper tools, one cannot farm land effectively. Without people harvesting resources, you can't create tools. People function at a higher level than these to create better tools, produce more effective methods, distribute the best results, and many other things. And without all of their work, writers are not free to create anything. Is it your position that writers are thus unworthy of praise, for without the entire framework of a wealthy society, they would be spending their time picking berries, instead of producing yet one more piece of derivative artwork? There is no added value to life from retelling the same stories over and over, and evolving them ever so slightly for the times? This is of course false, and purely crap. Looking up the chain and saying others take your work and provide no benefit, is delusional. I don't need to produce electricity for myself, or manufacture my own clothing or my computer , and I think it would be fairly absurd for a farmer to suggest the software I write isn't a sufficient contribution over the framework they provide, that I could not exist without. Publishers provide a very real, human service. They help the writing process, secure the means of production, and serve to create a beacon I can look to for various standards of quality. They free from the writer many burdens, and ease the means by which I can find something I value. In reality, most easy things are shit. Modern life makes it fairly easy to produce text, but it doesn't make it any easier to product quality.
I can look over at SourceForge, which is made veritably useless by the mammoth quantity of garbage, throw-away software. I can look at blogs, and find endless quantities of non-creative, boring tripe, that would be far more interesting to sociologists and psychologists, than anyone looking for artistic excellence. I can go over the mp3.com and download thousands, and thousands of absolutely horrible pieces of crap. I could attempt to click my way through segments of the web, or I can use Google. Google couldn't exist without content to search, and yet it makes my usage of the 'net far more productive, by filtering out the endless quantities of garbage I'm not interested in. I have no problems paying, myself, for the overhead of the services I find beneficial to me. This includes the quality control and branding of a publishing house. Whether it can exist without a lower step in the chain is irrelevant, because it makes for a better product.
Just because you're not personally capable of the reflection required to understand the world in which you exist, doesn't mean it fits within the scope of what you do understand, anymore than an illiterate makes my words just a bunch of squiggly lines. Stop thinking your simplistic insights of how the world is broken somehow escape the rest of us, and spend more time thinking of why the world works the way it does. I can assure you, we're not missing anythign you see.
Why not? Disney employs an ARMY of laywers. Fill out a form every 10 or 20 years... they could easily keep up and it would be in their interest to do so.
Let's say if we charge 1M dollars per year for every copyright that they wish to extend. Every copyright that they extend would cost them a lot of money and they'd be damn sure that they're getting their money's worth on them. They would NOT just keep on extending all of them, on the off chance that one of them might be worth a little something, because they would not pay off.
The oldest corporation still in it's original form is > 1000 years old. Mergers would retain the copyrights. Copyrights could well live on for a VERY VERY VERY long time.
Firstly, as I said above, simple cost benefit analysis here would prevent this (even ignoring that my idea would have a sunset). Secondly, there are very few companies this old, or even remotely close to it, most have in fact gone out of business. Do the math.
Patents are for ideas on physical things. Copyrights are for ideas on... slightly less physical things.
You are dead wrong. Patents do not need to be physical at all. Copyrights are NOT on ideas at all; Copyrights are on actual works and very direct derivations (e.g., plagarism)--not the ideas, methods, phrases, words, and the like contained within. So, for instance, if I write a piece of software and implement a novel algorithm to perform some novel task and obtain a copyright on them, my algorithm could still be used in its essential form and the application could be copied as well. This is why I treat patents very differently here. While I'm a firm advocate of patents, patents have the potential to stop others from implementing ideas that they might come up with on their own, copyright really does not have this ability at all. They are two very different things, even if the fundamental logic behind them is the same.
The publishers are not just middlemen. They are the primary risk takers. Yes, an author may spend a couple months writing the book, but he either lacks the financial resources or is unwilling to commit them to promote, publish, and sell his book. So while the author takes risk, perhaps relatively great personal risk, and while they are necessary, it is very far from sufficient. The publishers make a real effort to actually sell the book, to get it placed in shelves, to get ad time, etc. A good number of their efforts fail, but some succeed. This is why the publishers are able to command such an apparently large premiums for what they do. If all they did was merely stick their stamp of approval on it, then you'd have a million other parties, whether that be the authors themselves or other sizable companies, moving in for a piece of the action. Part of the way that they survive and part of their function is by selecting works that are more apt to succeed on the market (so that they can maximize their profits). It may not be perfect, but it's nonetheless necessary.
This is not to say that there are not other possible methods that could eventually replace them, but it is foolish and wrong to ignore what they do. If you have a good working alternative, then I (and I suspect most others) would encourage you to go ahead with it. However, what many so-called artists on slashdot ask is downright irrational; they want to tear down the only thing that works, however imperfect it may be, without even offering a realistic alternative solution and certainly not proving its efficacy.
You know what? If the publish are unnecessary and are just middlemen, then go around them, for christssake, and create a better system. If they're as unessential as you claim then surely their returns will eventually reflect this. THAT is the way capitalism works, not legislation and braindead protests.
Part of the motivation of copyright expiration is to encourage people to create NEW works. All works are derivitave to some degree or another... the expiration sees to it that a derivitave work does not get an infinite placement and wind up to some degree or another obscuring the original work in the public doman.
While it is true that many works are derived to some degree from previous works, it is not true that this sort of derivation is protected by copyright. There is very little that falls in that space, i.e., that would be barred by copyright. You are free paraphrase, take the ideas, quote, use the methods, or what have you. All you are stopped from doing is essentially taking the work, making relatively slight modifications to it, and calling it your own and re-publishing it w/o getting consent from the original copyright holder.
As for a disaster... Imagine if Plato had been indefinitely copyrighted... or the Bible... or any of the other great works of history. The Pope would be able to license or dismiss ANY printing of the Bible... how would the protestants feel about that?
Be real. We're talking about 20 years here, not 2000+. Actually, if you want to be technical, the Pope would not have any claim over the bible (the orthodox church would have a stronger claim, but even that would be weak).
Disney is likely to live INFINITELY long (e.g. until there is a major change in the world order that makes the arguement moot). Why should they have more rights than an individual copyright holder? "Because they will continue to re-invest"?
First, Disney is unlikely to last all that long. Old and well established companies die or are merged into other companies all the time. Secondly, even if Disney lasted that long, it is unlikely that they would maintain copyrights on works that no longer appear to be relelvant, i.e., most of them. The only works that they are apt to try to protect are those that they still are spending money on, i.e., mickey mouse. The loss of Mickey mouse from the public domain, i.e., the freedom to copy it in its entirity, is not that great of a loss for society at large, but the loss of the copyright to Disney would be huge and would negative secondary effects for society. The vast majority of works would automatically lapse into the public domain. This way we don't have the Nth generation of Disney popping up some 500 years later, when Disney's works are re-discovered, to claim riches.
It isn't about what's good for the economy in the short term... it's about what's good for society... OFTEN different things.
I was not making my argument just on economic ends for their own sake. My argument merely used economics to argue society's greatest good. Just because a corporation happens to get rich does not mean that that is not the most beneficial path for society. In other words, if re-investment is no longer economically viable, then society is apt to suffer because the works would effectively disappear, not because they're locked by gov't granted monopoly, but because no one would have sufficient incentive publish them, to promote the demand, etc.
While it is true that Disney invested originally in these copyrighted works with the knowledge that they were to expire at some time, it is often desirable that companies continue to re-invest in it by continuing the marketing, publication, and support. If Disney or any other company believes that it will lose copyright for something in the near term, then it will cease to re-invest, i.e., publication, marketing, and so on of the specific work. It is desirable that they continue to invest in it--even if these sums are not huge. Furthermore, it is not clear that the enterance of the copyrighted work into the public domain will be a good substitute for the function that Disney or other copyright holders perform. When everyone is equally able to publish the work it CAN, in reality, cause less total investment in publishing, promotion, etc. Think about it. Let's say if 100 years from now Mickey Mouse is in the public domain and that's not known to most people. If I invest, say, 20m to get it published, put it on shelves, etc and it starts succeed, then many competitors will rush to enter because they know the market is there. This can create a situation where I (or anyone) must take the initial risk to distribute it but the payoff is too slim because competitors will ultimately crowd me out. True, we have classic works that are in the public domain and still being published today, but most of these are with some value added that is copyrighted, whether that be a unique translation, footnotes, compilation, or what have you and/or these are normally on well known books where the demand is well known so that the risk (e.g., marketing costs) is slim enough to support a number of competitors in the same area. Lastly, the copyright is so narrow that all the ideas, principles, formulas, methods, phrases, and so on can be exploited the moment that the work is published (despite the existence of the copyright). All the copyright does, in essense, is protect against wholesale copy of the whole or substantial parts.
I'm not arguing that all copyrights should be out of the public domain indefinitely but that 20 year extensions like these actually make sense with companies like Disney. All that I might change is that the copyright holders be required to either pay some on-going significant fee to renew the copyright or show that they are continuing to invest in it. Failure to do that would automatically result in it lapsing into the public domain--this would simply be a little cleaner as most copyright holders would see that their copyrights hold little value. Nonetheless, this current situation really is not the end of the world. I defy you and others to name some sort of concrete harm that has or is apt to come as a result of this sort of extension. Let's face it, there are few works that are really in demand, regardless of whether or not they're public domain, in that window of time that the extension grants (Disney and others are a select few and it's largely because of their continued investment)
Almost all the criticisms offered by Ritchie were about the original Pascal, not the improved object oriented pascal that is used by Delphi. Almost all the looping, escaping, breaking, pointers and other features that a C programmer would expect in C can be done just as well with Delphi (Object Oriented Pascal). Object Oriented Pascal is to Pascal what C++ is to C, though it fixed some of the fundamental shortcomings of the language in the process where C++ did not (and did not need to by and large). The syntax may look different, but it's really very very similar to C and C++ these days. While I personally prefer C's somewhat more terse syntax, I really cannot say I miss much. I've been able to port back and forth without any real difficulty. If you do almost any sort of Windows application development and haven't tried Delphi, then you really are missing out. I would assert that Delphi could replace VC++ for most applications but for its relative lack of critical mass. This makes it relatively undesirable for large scale projects. Where it really makes up for the lack of critical mass, i.e., fewer Delphi programmers, is though its RAD features and components and other advantages (which are less desirable on large ones). It makes it worthwile in many cases for C and C++ programmers to learn Delphi (it's not hard if you come from that background) in smaller shops where rapid turn around time is needed....Yeah, it can be a slight pain working directly with the windows (not always/usually necessary) and other C/C++ APIs because it's non-native, but it does work well.
Because the addicts probably cause them more problems than they're worth. Yes, an addict is apt to be paying for the service, but it's not like playing the game 5, 10, or 18 hours a day is going to make Sony any more money. A player that simply enjoys playing and is sufficiently engrossed in the game (as in like an hour a day) will pay the same fixed rate, no? So then why would Sony want people to abuse it if there's no marginal benefit?
An addict is more apt to: cause problems for other players, engage in anti-social behavior online, consume more network/cpu/db resources, demand more of customer service, and so on. Addicts are almost certainly a relatively small part of the population too and not Sony's real target market. What's more, The paranoia of getting addicted and social stigma that is created by the actual addicts is far more likely to scare away the 99.9% of potential and existing players-far more than the addicts that they might lose by controlling it appropriately (if that's even necessary). This is not even bringing up the potential costs of lawsuits and so on.
If anything, I would think that preventing players from over-playing the game would prolong the play time or even amongst the more addicted players. The addicts are apt to burn themselves out more quickly, whether it's the result of their parents forcing them, them getting fired, their girlfriend's threatening to leave them, etc.
Of course, I've never played even a single MMORPG, so what do I know?
I don't agree. Schools with massive organized sports (like all of Texas) also tend to have the largest problem with what some would call nerd bashing. The result it the sides of the bell curve are squeezed in so the jocks end up towards the top of the curve and everyone else is excluded.
I think you are confusing my statement with the situation in Texas. In Texas, correct me if I'm wrong (I've never lived there), but the focus is on ONE team in primarily ONE sport in each season. Yes, you may have a JV team or even a third and fourth string, but it's not enough to field all students in the school that are interested and they're viewed as feeders at best for the varsity teams. All other sports teams are given short shrift, lack of funding, lack of time, lack of respect, etc. The end result is that you have 90% of the school playing no sports and another 10% that is playing them all the time.
Contrast this with the situation amongst the better private schools. Here you have a multitude of sports offered each season and everyone that wants to play can play, by and large, providing that there are enough players to field a team. Furthermore, virtually everyone in the school is playing a sport or is actively involved in some other program (e.g., drama). What's more, the varsity athletes are generally not allowed to get away with murder. Oh yeah, and I forgot one other thing, no one is just playing one sport all year round, even the varsity athletes are expected to participate in a sport (necessarily a different sport) every season and not merely lifting weights to get ready for football or what have you. They're still held accountable for their grades and it's understood that that is what will get them into a good college ultimately. The end result here is that participation is roughly 100% and that everyone is playing about the same amount.
Before you argue that this is necessarily expensive, I'd argue that it need not be (from experience) and that it can pay for itself. At many private schools the teachers are encouraged and often required to coach at least one sport a year. At some they're even trained to drive buses so that THEY can shuttle their team to and fro. You rarely have the fancy stadium(s), weight rooms, trainers, physicians, etc. There is generally also less vandalism, fewer incidents of misbehavior, fewer kids getting mixed up in bad things, etc--relative to those schools that do not require it.
Mandatory does not mean you get to play if you want to. Mandatory means you play whether you want to or not. I, for one, did not.
I know what mandatory means full well; the two statements are not mutually exclusive. I believe that it should be mandatory that every student plays some sport or some other school activity (e.g., drama), except for when the student has a genuine handicap, is participating in other rigorous activity that cannot be played within the school (e.g., semi-pro tennis), and so on. I also believe that students should be able to play any sport that the school offers, within reason (e.g., willingess to compete, reasonable health, etc). The problem is that most public schools in the US only offer a varsity and (somewhat less often) a junior varsity team which only accomodates a mere fraction of the number of students that are interested in playing. There are a good number of private schools, on the other hand, that offer 5 or more strings of every major sport and everyone that wants to play has a good shot at getting involved with the school. In other words, it scales with demand. There may be some sports that do not have enough space to accomodate every student but that deficit is generally not enuogh to field a team. My point is that not only are sports at the public schools merely not mandatory but that they are effectively closed to all but the so-called jocks. What's more, this serves to isolate both player and non-player from the school.
I'm not sure I agree with this or not, but *forcing* kids to participate (in anything) isn't going to accomplish anything either. The reason kids don't "participate" is generally not because of a lack of opportunity; it's because they don't want to.
I disagree. This same argument can be made for school work. We shouldn't require it because students don't want to play? Well, I went to two (well technically 3) different high schools that had different philosophies about sports. The one that required it, whether you believe it or not, generally had a willing and excited student body that wanted to play their sports (and that's been my experience with similar schools today and with the historical experience) You might chalk it up to a feedback effect and a certain critical mass...just as you might with academic performance at a good school. No? I was also gave somewhat short shrift to some of the other benefits like the fact that students that are busy generally do not get in nearly as much trouble, tend to be psychologically healthier, have lower incidence of disease, have fewer discipline problems on campus, etc.
Stop focussing so much money on organized sports when your school is graduating illiterates
Organized sports are not that expensive and the communities that tend to be poorly performing are also the ones with the lowest levels of participation in sports. In fact, those that have high levels of participation in sports tend to drastically outperform those with low levels. I, for one, believe that mandatory athletic programs for ALL students (excepting perhaps those that are actively engaged in the arts and other structured activities) is a good thing. That does not mean that every person needs to play varsity or even JV (which is viewed as a feeder program at most of these schools) but that everyone that wants to play a sport should, even if it is 3rd, 4th, or 5th string. Many of the problems in the schools are a result of lack of participation. It is not an accident that the best students at good schools tend to be those that play sports most seasons. Most of these shortfalls in public school funding are going to huge adminstrative overhead (like 1 administrator per actual teacher in some districts) and not to athletics per se . Although many do spend too much on popular varsity sports, the issue isn't the sum it's the imbalance.
Note: I also blame low standards, grade inflation, madatory teacher certification, absurd union rules, social promotion, backwards education philosophy, and other issues....but that's another story.:)
Bullshit. That "by and large" means "within the bounds of existing copyright law and prior case law." Copyright law does not give the copyright holder rights to the physical medium, nor does it allow the copyright holder to determine "terms and conditions of use." To my knowledge it has not been determined whether a consumer can be forced to give up fair use rights by contractual agreement.
That is not "bullshit"--there's nothing false about it. Yes, there is a body of law and precedent (as I indicated), but it's all fundamentally premised on the understanding that the owner has a monopoly, albeit limited in time, on the intellectual property and can do with it what he pleases with some notable exceptions. The limited monopoly term is really a reference to time--monopoly means 100%. Not 50/50, not 60/40, 100%. Those more recent laws, those limitations, are one of enumeration--it is NOT the other way around, i.e., we don't say that an author may only sell his work on printed paper and for not more than 5 dollars per page. If a copyright holder wishes to charge 1m dollars for it he does not need to seek permission or look high and low for the body of law. It is assumed that he has the right unless there is clear precedent that contradicts it.
Yet another person who thinks the Constitution gives us our rights. It does not. The Constitution limits the power of government. Any copyright law restricting fair use is not constitutional because it does not "promote the useful arts and sciences."
I did not say that the Constitution spells out copyright. It did, however, provide the basis for the copyright act that came out just 2 or 3 years later. My point is that most of the limitations and, especially, the doctrine of "fair use" (as it is thought of now) started many years after the Copyright act. In fact, most of what you refer to as "fair use" are very recent additions.
Again bullshit! No aspect of copyright law requires the buyer of copyrighted materials to respect a buisness model. Copyright law restricts the rights of the consumer to produce copies of copyrighted works in a manner that is not consistant with fair use. It does not restrict use of copyrighted material in other ways. You can lend a DVD to a friend, for example. You have the right to resell the original copy.
You obviously have trouble reading. I never said the buyer (or in this case the viewer) is expected to think of the owner's business model. I was referring to the courts. The courts have LONG held that the most important test is whether or not an abridgement of the copyright owner's control would have a substantial negative impact on the copyright holder's market. It clearly would in this case and I don't think that you can deny this. You should try comparing this destruction to the well supported elements of "fair use" that you enumerate where the harm to the owners is very minimal, if at all, and is sometimes even positive in its effect. For instance, by allowing reviews to be done on copyrighted works, we improve the efficiency of the publishing market as a whole-since when consumers have more faith in what they're buying they are apt to buy more books-this in turn helps the publishing market as a whole (even if particular publishers may not want an honest review on some of their more mediocre publications).
I did not fail to note fair use, I just didn't explicitly state it. I do not regard this as falling anywhere within fair use. Your cable bill, whether you know it or not, does not fully pay for all the content on your cable. The ads are helping to pay for a good part of the content that you are watching. I see nothing "extremely slippery" about allowing copyright owners full control of their IP for a limited duration (especially with some of the more established and fair elements of fair use, such as quotation, reviews, and so on). There are elements of "fair use" that make good sense (though in many cases they'd be granted anyways), but the doctrine has been abused a lot by those that simply are too cheap to pay for what they can and should pay for.
The VCR analogy is a poor one. Movies on VCR cassettes are paid for in their entirety (well hopefully at least) of course, they do not depend on you to watch ads when you watch the movie. While you can tape stuff off your cable, its ability to stagger the viewing and its ease of use is drastically different. With my TIVO, I can wait 10 minutes until after a 60 minute show has begone and enjoy the show, free of ads, without having to wait till it is over. With a VCR I would need to essentially wait till I can start watching from the beginning or watch in real time, without the ability to fast forward (obviously), pause, or rewind. What's more, the ability to skip commercials is facilitated in some PVRs substantially better between 30 second skips and intelligent scanning. Not to mention the vast differences between ease of use when recording between a good PVR and a traditional VCR.
I am not saying that I oppose PVRs, or even the ability to fast forward or reverse through shows, but I think that there needs to be truly fair control. For instance, I'm sure it is possible to enable the device to skip over content without skipping over ads, i.e., if the consumers ends fast/reverse skipping right within say, 30 seconds of a commercial of the end of a commercial block, then start at the beginning of the commercial block. Enabling time shifting does not necessarily mean that we need to enable consumers to give ads the shaft. I frankly hate mosts ads and would rather pay for what little I do watch on TV, free of ads, but I honestly suspect that I'm one of the few. So I could also envision the possibility of a dual use system... either pay a premium for ad-skipping (or skipped) enabled cable or go with standard cable and go without the ability to avoid ads.
It's not quite so simple as you would make it out to be. First, cable companies are allowed local monopolies under the assumption that access a single cable company is in the public interest. That doesn't mean they can do whatever want, like imposing limits to legitimate fair-use of broadcast content.
While you may have a point here insofar as they have a government provided monopoly, the existence of sattelite, broadcast, and other technologies means that their ability to really screw the consumers is limited.
People who receive cable are NOT signatories to any contracts that exist between the cable companies and content providers. Nothing in my cable contract has any limits to the type of device I use to view the content. Nothing prohibits recording content for personal use. Nothing prohibits skipping commercials. Even if it did, it's likely that such clauses would not be binding.
This is correct today but I've yet to hear of these cable companies actually take action against any consumer for said behavior yet either.
The problem the cable companies have is that, to some extent, they have lost their monopolies. Satellite service has become affordable and it provides more programming choice. A legislative or technological straight-jacket forcing the public to cough up more money probably sounds pretty good to them right now. While we're making people pay for skipping commercials, let's force browsers to charge web surfers for pop-up blocking. After all, geocities has a Constitutional right to make a profit through coercion, doesn't it?
First you say that sattelite is a superior alternative and then you speak as if consumers are forced to use cable (despite the fact that the vast majority of consumers can get both). You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either consumers have a choice or they don't.
I, personally, assert that sattelite is a pretty good alternative although not a perfect replacement. Thus I assert that the cable companies do not have much ability to bully the consumers about. Even if they did, that does not mean that they are necessarily wrong in this case.
I think it might be time to pick up your copy of the US Constitution. Find the copyright clause. Does the copyright clause mention compensation? Does it mention profit? The ends of copyright legislation is "promotion of the useful arts and sciences." If people can't make a profit from their works, or more likely selling someone elses work, tough! If cable compaines are worried about shrinking revenue from commercials, they'll need to come up with another way to make money. If it turns out that they can't compete with the alternatives (satellite, broadband over phonelines, local fiber, whatever), then the cable companies will go out of business. Makes you want to run out and buy stock, doesn't it.
That's pretty arrogant and just plain wrong. No where did I mention that a copyright entitles the owner to profit. Quite the contrary, I said that owning a copyright entitles one, by and large, to determine the terms and conditions of its use. Only if the copyright has real unique value can the owner set terms that will allow them to profit. For instance, I can set the price on my essay on the BigMac at 1m dollars, but that does not mean that I will make a dime. Now you may throw out "fair use", but this is a contentious issue. First, the doctrine of fair use is NOT in the Constitution, it came along afterwards. Second, it has been applied in some very questionable cases. Third, there is no clear precedent for "fair use" here. Lastly, there's nothing "fair" or reasonable about what you suggest. Genuine "time shifting" is one thing, but a method that is intentionally designed cut out the only source of revenue, i.e., ads, for a good number of channels/products, against the will of the copyright owners and licensees, is simply wrong. Not only are you trampling on their copyright, but you are doing it in a way that will have devastating impact on their ability to profit from their efforts.
Even if you cannot give a rats ass about the owners, you still need to honestly examine the question of efficiency. You may scream till you are blue in the face that the owners can move to pay per view or some other scheme, but these are not necessarily workable or even more desirable by consumers. In other words, just because consumers may opt, as individuals, to skip over commercials does not mean that they are better off with that option. This is not too dissimilar from the situation with taxes. We are all better off if we all pull our weight and pay taxes, rather then going to some other scheme like directly paying for the particular government services (e.g., roads, military, etc) that we need. However, this effectively requires it to be mandated and enforced as it creates a free rider situation if individuals are allowed to reap the benefits without having to pay the cost and will eventually destroy the entire system. In much the same way, you need to ask yourself whether you want to enable consumers to defeat ads. It may well be the case that advertizers benefit MORE from your seeing ads than what you would be willing to pay the same concent. What's more, you need to factor the efficiency of payments in, even with all of our technology today, there is going to be significant overhead and structural costs involved with direct payment methodology.
Lots of people in America live without cable television, and if millions of people decided to cancel their cable service en masse, it would be news, but it wouldn't be cause for the government to step in and pass a law requiring citizens to pay for cable.
But this is not what the industry has asked for. If they were doing this, then your quote would be relevant, but they aren't.
People could live without cable if they wanted. Some would switch to satellite. Some would subscribe to Netflix or just rent from the local video store. Others would find a local sports bar to watch the games they wanted to see. Some would read more books or listen to more music or use their computers instead. Cable television is essential to people employed by cable companies and some networks, but we could live without it, so I would say Heinlein's argument stands.
While cable, in and of itself, is of arguable importance, the fact that those consumers are using and paying for the service does imply that the consumer places some unique value on their services. The cable companies (also) have the right to regulate their transmissions of it by extension of the copyright holders. If (and I stress IF) consumers really do not like the terms and conditions that the cable company sets forth, then they can surely move on to your suggested alternatives if they are as equal replacements as you suggest they are. Anyways-it is not clear that your alternatives are entirely in agreement with PVR and that they would not follow the cable companies lead (this issue is very much in its infancy) as their concerns are much the same. (Except for perhaps NetFlix, but that's hardly a solution for most stuff that's on TV.) I believe this issue is more a matter of paying for the production of content that is not pay per view and, to a lesser extent, its delivery. Somewhere along the line substantial revenue has to be kicked back or those shows would cease production. It is quite possible that many shows cannot be efficiently paid for if they were forced to rely on a PPV scheme, nor is it clear that most consumers would rather pay then watch ads.
So enjoy it while you can. I do. I watch (some) commercial TV and I don't watch the ads. Many execs would have you believe that this is some sort of theft. But as Robert Heinlein said:
"There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statue or common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."
This is a fallacious argument. Whether or not you happen to agree with the cable companies is besides the point. Firstly, copyright holders and, by extension, licensees of those copyrights (e.g., cable companies) do, with some notable exceptions, have the right to determine the terms and conditons of the use of their IP. You have the choice to use their service in compliance with their contract and pay; or not use their service and not pay them. Nothing has changed here fundamentally other then the fact that the consumer has a new way to potentially violate their contract. Secondly, besides just the legal rights of the copyright holders, we are still left with the hugely important issue of (fully) compensating the copyright holders and licensees for their services. Do not confuse the fact that the means of collection may be essentially short circuited by technology with the necessity of the ends. Covering the costs of production, however indirect, is still every bit as necessary as it was 10, 20, or 30 years ago. In summary, this is nothing like, say, a manufacturer of horse whips asking for government protection from the advent of cars; cars made horses irrelevant while the cable companies and the production industry is still very essential.
I may not agree with their perception of PVRs and I may not even cooperate with them, but I do recognize that they have the right to take the offensive against things of this nature and that your argument is false.
Slashdot Mirror
A one way hash is simply a function that converts a given input into some fixed length output and is hard to reverse, i.e., to generate some input that will match a given hash. The mere fact that the hash is much smaller than the input does not mean that is it one way. In the first place, the term describes the properties of the function itself, not a relationship between a particular input and output, and a good function is universal. Furthermore, even in cases where the hash is much smaller than the input, the trivial reversal (since your implied definition would not preclude this on the basis that the hash is too small) of the function could be used to describe the input or trivially generate all possible inputs (without having to brute force from the other direction). This poor definition would be sufficient in many applications to defeat its purpose. For instance, I could search all the (much larger) inputs that match a given hash for the exact input that the hash was generated against, e.g., search for english words, search for known songs, modify some crappy noise to match, etc.
Wrong again. One-way says nothing about there being a One-to-One correlation; it merely describes the direction, i.e., that it's easy to go from input to output (hash), but very hard to go from output to input.
Your understanding of the term is obviously deeply flawed because you contradict yourself. You can't, one one hand, say that MD5 is one way because there can't be any other inputs to match the hash and, on the other hand, say that md5 is a one-way hash in some cases because you "obviously can't generate a three megabyte file from its 32 byte MD5 checksum". If there is a one to one relationship between a 32byte hash and a larger input, even if it is 1 gigabyte (not impossible in an arbitrary function for a few inputs, though likely poor), then you could, by definition, generate a unique input based on that hash. It may take you a zillion years (or 5 seconds with your implied weak defintion), but you could do it. [A very crappy one-way function might do this with a select few inputs too, but obviously not for all] Please do some more research. Thanks.
But I never said that I could do it in a reasonable amount of time. I just said that I (or anyone really) could do it given enough time. That is not controversial in the least.
Well I wasn't the earlier poster. I'm not implying that it's practical for RIAA to attempt to brute force MD5 keys. I was just responding to your particular language, which is very different than what you are saying now. I was not implying that it would be practical for RIAA to set about breaking these keys. However, the fact is that they really wouldn't need to. There is really no framework that would necessitate this sort of attack. People aren't actively searching with MD5 by and large; most of the networks don't support it and the users really don't know how to use it and even if they did obtaining a dependable source to validate files that are actually addressable on the network would remain a problem. These networks might respond, but then they'd be at least tacitly acknowledging that they are about active copyright violation and not about alternative distribution and all the other sorts of nonsense that they've advocated. What's more, this system of trust would necessitate some form of centralization to distribute those files and sign them and that would create a target for law enforcement and the industry. For instance, if 99% of people are downloading with a relatively small range of hashes and the network is built to support them, then it is certainly reasonable to ask that they be filtered. It also would create a much easier way to bust servers and clients through automated technolog, i.e., no more string matching, music matching, etc. necessary, just a simple checksum that can be searched for and positively identified (with the checksum alone for high certainty, with a copy of the file for absolute certainty)
Actually, if you want to be technical, there is respected research that md5 can at least be bent, so that the data can be slightly modified, and still yield the same MD5 sum in about 24 days on average with a 10 million dollar machine (in 1994). See van Oorschot and M.J. Wiener, Parallel Collision Search with Application to Hash Functions and Discrete Logarithms. It stands to reason that this machine would very affordable in 50 years and could do it even faster.
I don't deny that MD5, other one way hashes, and asymetrical crypto are extremely valuable. I recognize that the delay and the effort required to actually break them makes theft or tampering a practically unfeasible viable activity. I was just responding to your statement that it was essentially impossible to break or crack md5 in any amount of time. Sorry, but if you meant something else, then you should have been a little more clear.
Firstly, MD5 is just a one way hash. That hash can be and is often signed to prove that the hash was generated by some trusted party. However, if the hash itself is broken, then validating with it any signature, regardless of how secure it is, is by definition meaningless. See MD4 and others.
Secondly, we only presume MD5 to be a good one way hash--there is no absolute proof that it is. There might be some novel approach that we just don't know about yet.
Thirdly, by definition, no one-way hash can rule out the possiblity of brute forcing the hash by throwing enough stuff at it with the hope that something else will generate the same hash. In other words, we KNOW there exist other inputs that will generate the exact same hash result because the hash cannot possibly describe a unique input given that it is much much shorter. We only believe that it would be very hard to generate some other (reasonable) input to match a specific target hash. For instance, for some known hash I probably cannot generate an input that will match it and I especially cannot hope to generate one that is apt to resemble what I intend to pass my package off as. However, given enough computer time, I can certainly generate SOME file (even if it is ugly) that will match your MD5 hash (and pass your signature with flying colors). In 50 years even there is every reason to think that this would be a trivial task.
As one of my lateral posters commented, consultants tend to be anything but "serious business types". I'm not familiar with this particular CEO, but I'd hardly expect him, on the basis of his position with Accenture, to be really familiar with business operations. Also, WebVan "only" managed to raise about 400m. While that's a whole lot of money, it's a far cry short from 1b. You're almost certainly referring to their market capitalization (which at some point exceeded 1b), but that's a very different thing all together.
In slashdot's particular case, I happen to think that the design of their backend is rather inefficient (it was a hack and it seems to still be), their frontend could use a lot of work, their moderation system could be improved upon without much added complexity, their editing is just plain horrendous, their bias spills over unnecessarily in many cases, and what little original content that they do produce is unimpressive at best. In short, they're mismanaged and they're missing out on a lot of opportunity. Slashdot, as it stands today and has always been, is nothing more than some hacked together scripts, some hardware, sloppy editing/administration, and a lot of popularity amongst young techies. It could be much better if they were a little smarter and worked a lot harder.
The moral here is that just because something is nominally in the public interest does not mean that it is, does not mean that it is reasonable, and does not mean that working around the law is always so wrong (sometimes it is the lesser or two evils). I do not necessarily judge the ranchers here to be in the wrong and the government in the right.
Firstly, the debate isn't over Disney's ability to lobby-the debate is over whether or not THIS particular piece of legislation is right. Secondly, lobbying itself is very expensive and the ability to really do something that is contrary to the public's will is pretty minimal (only when the public turns a blind eye to it or is very mixed can they really do much). Do you really think that Disney is going to spend, say, 100m dollars lobbying to keep, say, Donald Duck for another 200 years when it's no longer relevant to anyone? These things are not going to be worth the investment forever. Only for a select few items (e.g., those which Disney might use to market themselves as a company) that Disney has continued to invest in (because they market themselves with it) have the potential to last for such an extended period of time. Thirdly, if you're going to argue against laws themselves under the assumption that the party in question will just (effectively) ignore them anyways, then it's just silly to argue about laws in the first place.
Clarification. When I said application, I meant the actual idea to perform some task, not the code (binary or source).
Firstly, as I said above, simple cost benefit analysis here would prevent this (even ignoring that my idea would have a sunset). Secondly, there are very few companies this old, or even remotely close to it, most have in fact gone out of business. Do the math.
You are dead wrong. Patents do not need to be physical at all. Copyrights are NOT on ideas at all; Copyrights are on actual works and very direct derivations (e.g., plagarism)--not the ideas, methods, phrases, words, and the like contained within. So, for instance, if I write a piece of software and implement a novel algorithm to perform some novel task and obtain a copyright on them, my algorithm could still be used in its essential form and the application could be copied as well. This is why I treat patents very differently here. While I'm a firm advocate of patents, patents have the potential to stop others from implementing ideas that they might come up with on their own, copyright really does not have this ability at all. They are two very different things, even if the fundamental logic behind them is the same.
The publishers are not just middlemen. They are the primary risk takers. Yes, an author may spend a couple months writing the book, but he either lacks the financial resources or is unwilling to commit them to promote, publish, and sell his book. So while the author takes risk, perhaps relatively great personal risk, and while they are necessary, it is very far from sufficient. The publishers make a real effort to actually sell the book, to get it placed in shelves, to get ad time, etc. A good number of their efforts fail, but some succeed. This is why the publishers are able to command such an apparently large premiums for what they do. If all they did was merely stick their stamp of approval on it, then you'd have a million other parties, whether that be the authors themselves or other sizable companies, moving in for a piece of the action. Part of the way that they survive and part of their function is by selecting works that are more apt to succeed on the market (so that they can maximize their profits). It may not be perfect, but it's nonetheless necessary.
This is not to say that there are not other possible methods that could eventually replace them, but it is foolish and wrong to ignore what they do. If you have a good working alternative, then I (and I suspect most others) would encourage you to go ahead with it. However, what many so-called artists on slashdot ask is downright irrational; they want to tear down the only thing that works, however imperfect it may be, without even offering a realistic alternative solution and certainly not proving its efficacy.
You know what? If the publish are unnecessary and are just middlemen, then go around them, for christssake, and create a better system. If they're as unessential as you claim then surely their returns will eventually reflect this. THAT is the way capitalism works, not legislation and braindead protests.
Be real. We're talking about 20 years here, not 2000+. Actually, if you want to be technical, the Pope would not have any claim over the bible (the orthodox church would have a stronger claim, but even that would be weak).
First, Disney is unlikely to last all that long. Old and well established companies die or are merged into other companies all the time. Secondly, even if Disney lasted that long, it is unlikely that they would maintain copyrights on works that no longer appear to be relelvant, i.e., most of them. The only works that they are apt to try to protect are those that they still are spending money on, i.e., mickey mouse. The loss of Mickey mouse from the public domain, i.e., the freedom to copy it in its entirity, is not that great of a loss for society at large, but the loss of the copyright to Disney would be huge and would negative secondary effects for society. The vast majority of works would automatically lapse into the public domain. This way we don't have the Nth generation of Disney popping up some 500 years later, when Disney's works are re-discovered, to claim riches.
I was not making my argument just on economic ends for their own sake. My argument merely used economics to argue society's greatest good. Just because a corporation happens to get rich does not mean that that is not the most beneficial path for society. In other words, if re-investment is no longer economically viable, then society is apt to suffer because the works would effectively disappear, not because they're locked by gov't granted monopoly, but because no one would have sufficient incentive publish them, to promote the demand, etc.
While it is true that Disney invested originally in these copyrighted works with the knowledge that they were to expire at some time, it is often desirable that companies continue to re-invest in it by continuing the marketing, publication, and support. If Disney or any other company believes that it will lose copyright for something in the near term, then it will cease to re-invest, i.e., publication, marketing, and so on of the specific work. It is desirable that they continue to invest in it--even if these sums are not huge. Furthermore, it is not clear that the enterance of the copyrighted work into the public domain will be a good substitute for the function that Disney or other copyright holders perform. When everyone is equally able to publish the work it CAN, in reality, cause less total investment in publishing, promotion, etc. Think about it. Let's say if 100 years from now Mickey Mouse is in the public domain and that's not known to most people. If I invest, say, 20m to get it published, put it on shelves, etc and it starts succeed, then many competitors will rush to enter because they know the market is there. This can create a situation where I (or anyone) must take the initial risk to distribute it but the payoff is too slim because competitors will ultimately crowd me out. True, we have classic works that are in the public domain and still being published today, but most of these are with some value added that is copyrighted, whether that be a unique translation, footnotes, compilation, or what have you and/or these are normally on well known books where the demand is well known so that the risk (e.g., marketing costs) is slim enough to support a number of competitors in the same area. Lastly, the copyright is so narrow that all the ideas, principles, formulas, methods, phrases, and so on can be exploited the moment that the work is published (despite the existence of the copyright). All the copyright does, in essense, is protect against wholesale copy of the whole or substantial parts.
I'm not arguing that all copyrights should be out of the public domain indefinitely but that 20 year extensions like these actually make sense with companies like Disney. All that I might change is that the copyright holders be required to either pay some on-going significant fee to renew the copyright or show that they are continuing to invest in it. Failure to do that would automatically result in it lapsing into the public domain--this would simply be a little cleaner as most copyright holders would see that their copyrights hold little value. Nonetheless, this current situation really is not the end of the world. I defy you and others to name some sort of concrete harm that has or is apt to come as a result of this sort of extension. Let's face it, there are few works that are really in demand, regardless of whether or not they're public domain, in that window of time that the extension grants (Disney and others are a select few and it's largely because of their continued investment)
Almost all the criticisms offered by Ritchie were about the original Pascal, not the improved object oriented pascal that is used by Delphi. Almost all the looping, escaping, breaking, pointers and other features that a C programmer would expect in C can be done just as well with Delphi (Object Oriented Pascal). Object Oriented Pascal is to Pascal what C++ is to C, though it fixed some of the fundamental shortcomings of the language in the process where C++ did not (and did not need to by and large). The syntax may look different, but it's really very very similar to C and C++ these days. While I personally prefer C's somewhat more terse syntax, I really cannot say I miss much. I've been able to port back and forth without any real difficulty. If you do almost any sort of Windows application development and haven't tried Delphi, then you really are missing out. I would assert that Delphi could replace VC++ for most applications but for its relative lack of critical mass. This makes it relatively undesirable for large scale projects. Where it really makes up for the lack of critical mass, i.e., fewer Delphi programmers, is though its RAD features and components and other advantages (which are less desirable on large ones). It makes it worthwile in many cases for C and C++ programmers to learn Delphi (it's not hard if you come from that background) in smaller shops where rapid turn around time is needed. ...Yeah, it can be a slight pain working directly with the windows (not always/usually necessary) and other C/C++ APIs because it's non-native, but it does work well.
Because the addicts probably cause them more problems than they're worth. Yes, an addict is apt to be paying for the service, but it's not like playing the game 5, 10, or 18 hours a day is going to make Sony any more money. A player that simply enjoys playing and is sufficiently engrossed in the game (as in like an hour a day) will pay the same fixed rate, no? So then why would Sony want people to abuse it if there's no marginal benefit?
An addict is more apt to: cause problems for other players, engage in anti-social behavior online, consume more network/cpu/db resources, demand more of customer service, and so on. Addicts are almost certainly a relatively small part of the population too and not Sony's real target market. What's more, The paranoia of getting addicted and social stigma that is created by the actual addicts is far more likely to scare away the 99.9% of potential and existing players-far more than the addicts that they might lose by controlling it appropriately (if that's even necessary). This is not even bringing up the potential costs of lawsuits and so on.
If anything, I would think that preventing players from over-playing the game would prolong the play time or even amongst the more addicted players. The addicts are apt to burn themselves out more quickly, whether it's the result of their parents forcing them, them getting fired, their girlfriend's threatening to leave them, etc.
Of course, I've never played even a single MMORPG, so what do I know?
Contrast this with the situation amongst the better private schools. Here you have a multitude of sports offered each season and everyone that wants to play can play, by and large, providing that there are enough players to field a team. Furthermore, virtually everyone in the school is playing a sport or is actively involved in some other program (e.g., drama). What's more, the varsity athletes are generally not allowed to get away with murder. Oh yeah, and I forgot one other thing, no one is just playing one sport all year round, even the varsity athletes are expected to participate in a sport (necessarily a different sport) every season and not merely lifting weights to get ready for football or what have you. They're still held accountable for their grades and it's understood that that is what will get them into a good college ultimately. The end result here is that participation is roughly 100% and that everyone is playing about the same amount.
Before you argue that this is necessarily expensive, I'd argue that it need not be (from experience) and that it can pay for itself. At many private schools the teachers are encouraged and often required to coach at least one sport a year. At some they're even trained to drive buses so that THEY can shuttle their team to and fro. You rarely have the fancy stadium(s), weight rooms, trainers, physicians, etc. There is generally also less vandalism, fewer incidents of misbehavior, fewer kids getting mixed up in bad things, etc--relative to those schools that do not require it.
I know what mandatory means full well; the two statements are not mutually exclusive. I believe that it should be mandatory that every student plays some sport or some other school activity (e.g., drama), except for when the student has a genuine handicap, is participating in other rigorous activity that cannot be played within the school (e.g., semi-pro tennis), and so on. I also believe that students should be able to play any sport that the school offers, within reason (e.g., willingess to compete, reasonable health, etc). The problem is that most public schools in the US only offer a varsity and (somewhat less often) a junior varsity team which only accomodates a mere fraction of the number of students that are interested in playing. There are a good number of private schools, on the other hand, that offer 5 or more strings of every major sport and everyone that wants to play has a good shot at getting involved with the school. In other words, it scales with demand. There may be some sports that do not have enough space to accomodate every student but that deficit is generally not enuogh to field a team. My point is that not only are sports at the public schools merely not mandatory but that they are effectively closed to all but the so-called jocks. What's more, this serves to isolate both player and non-player from the school.
I disagree. This same argument can be made for school work. We shouldn't require it because students don't want to play? Well, I went to two (well technically 3) different high schools that had different philosophies about sports. The one that required it, whether you believe it or not, generally had a willing and excited student body that wanted to play their sports (and that's been my experience with similar schools today and with the historical experience) You might chalk it up to a feedback effect and a certain critical mass...just as you might with academic performance at a good school. No? I was also gave somewhat short shrift to some of the other benefits like the fact that students that are busy generally do not get in nearly as much trouble, tend to be psychologically healthier, have lower incidence of disease, have fewer discipline problems on campus, etc.
Note: I also blame low standards, grade inflation, madatory teacher certification, absurd union rules, social promotion, backwards education philosophy, and other issues....but that's another story.
I did not say that the Constitution spells out copyright. It did, however, provide the basis for the copyright act that came out just 2 or 3 years later. My point is that most of the limitations and, especially, the doctrine of "fair use" (as it is thought of now) started many years after the Copyright act. In fact, most of what you refer to as "fair use" are very recent additions.
You obviously have trouble reading. I never said the buyer (or in this case the viewer) is expected to think of the owner's business model. I was referring to the courts. The courts have LONG held that the most important test is whether or not an abridgement of the copyright owner's control would have a substantial negative impact on the copyright holder's market. It clearly would in this case and I don't think that you can deny this. You should try comparing this destruction to the well supported elements of "fair use" that you enumerate where the harm to the owners is very minimal, if at all, and is sometimes even positive in its effect. For instance, by allowing reviews to be done on copyrighted works, we improve the efficiency of the publishing market as a whole-since when consumers have more faith in what they're buying they are apt to buy more books-this in turn helps the publishing market as a whole (even if particular publishers may not want an honest review on some of their more mediocre publications).
I did not fail to note fair use, I just didn't explicitly state it. I do not regard this as falling anywhere within fair use. Your cable bill, whether you know it or not, does not fully pay for all the content on your cable. The ads are helping to pay for a good part of the content that you are watching. I see nothing "extremely slippery" about allowing copyright owners full control of their IP for a limited duration (especially with some of the more established and fair elements of fair use, such as quotation, reviews, and so on). There are elements of "fair use" that make good sense (though in many cases they'd be granted anyways), but the doctrine has been abused a lot by those that simply are too cheap to pay for what they can and should pay for.
The VCR analogy is a poor one. Movies on VCR cassettes are paid for in their entirety (well hopefully at least) of course, they do not depend on you to watch ads when you watch the movie. While you can tape stuff off your cable, its ability to stagger the viewing and its ease of use is drastically different. With my TIVO, I can wait 10 minutes until after a 60 minute show has begone and enjoy the show, free of ads, without having to wait till it is over. With a VCR I would need to essentially wait till I can start watching from the beginning or watch in real time, without the ability to fast forward (obviously), pause, or rewind. What's more, the ability to skip commercials is facilitated in some PVRs substantially better between 30 second skips and intelligent scanning. Not to mention the vast differences between ease of use when recording between a good PVR and a traditional VCR.
I am not saying that I oppose PVRs, or even the ability to fast forward or reverse through shows, but I think that there needs to be truly fair control. For instance, I'm sure it is possible to enable the device to skip over content without skipping over ads, i.e., if the consumers ends fast/reverse skipping right within say, 30 seconds of a commercial of the end of a commercial block, then start at the beginning of the commercial block. Enabling time shifting does not necessarily mean that we need to enable consumers to give ads the shaft. I frankly hate mosts ads and would rather pay for what little I do watch on TV, free of ads, but I honestly suspect that I'm one of the few. So I could also envision the possibility of a dual use system... either pay a premium for ad-skipping (or skipped) enabled cable or go with standard cable and go without the ability to avoid ads.
This is correct today but I've yet to hear of these cable companies actually take action against any consumer for said behavior yet either.
First you say that sattelite is a superior alternative and then you speak as if consumers are forced to use cable (despite the fact that the vast majority of consumers can get both). You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either consumers have a choice or they don't.
I, personally, assert that sattelite is a pretty good alternative although not a perfect replacement. Thus I assert that the cable companies do not have much ability to bully the consumers about. Even if they did, that does not mean that they are necessarily wrong in this case.
That's pretty arrogant and just plain wrong. No where did I mention that a copyright entitles the owner to profit. Quite the contrary, I said that owning a copyright entitles one, by and large, to determine the terms and conditions of its use. Only if the copyright has real unique value can the owner set terms that will allow them to profit. For instance, I can set the price on my essay on the BigMac at 1m dollars, but that does not mean that I will make a dime. Now you may throw out "fair use", but this is a contentious issue. First, the doctrine of fair use is NOT in the Constitution, it came along afterwards. Second, it has been applied in some very questionable cases. Third, there is no clear precedent for "fair use" here. Lastly, there's nothing "fair" or reasonable about what you suggest. Genuine "time shifting" is one thing, but a method that is intentionally designed cut out the only source of revenue, i.e., ads, for a good number of channels/products, against the will of the copyright owners and licensees, is simply wrong. Not only are you trampling on their copyright, but you are doing it in a way that will have devastating impact on their ability to profit from their efforts.
Even if you cannot give a rats ass about the owners, you still need to honestly examine the question of efficiency. You may scream till you are blue in the face that the owners can move to pay per view or some other scheme, but these are not necessarily workable or even more desirable by consumers. In other words, just because consumers may opt, as individuals, to skip over commercials does not mean that they are better off with that option. This is not too dissimilar from the situation with taxes. We are all better off if we all pull our weight and pay taxes, rather then going to some other scheme like directly paying for the particular government services (e.g., roads, military, etc) that we need. However, this effectively requires it to be mandated and enforced as it creates a free rider situation if individuals are allowed to reap the benefits without having to pay the cost and will eventually destroy the entire system. In much the same way, you need to ask yourself whether you want to enable consumers to defeat ads. It may well be the case that advertizers benefit MORE from your seeing ads than what you would be willing to pay the same concent. What's more, you need to factor the efficiency of payments in, even with all of our technology today, there is going to be significant overhead and structural costs involved with direct payment methodology.
While cable, in and of itself, is of arguable importance, the fact that those consumers are using and paying for the service does imply that the consumer places some unique value on their services. The cable companies (also) have the right to regulate their transmissions of it by extension of the copyright holders. If (and I stress IF) consumers really do not like the terms and conditions that the cable company sets forth, then they can surely move on to your suggested alternatives if they are as equal replacements as you suggest they are. Anyways-it is not clear that your alternatives are entirely in agreement with PVR and that they would not follow the cable companies lead (this issue is very much in its infancy) as their concerns are much the same. (Except for perhaps NetFlix, but that's hardly a solution for most stuff that's on TV.) I believe this issue is more a matter of paying for the production of content that is not pay per view and, to a lesser extent, its delivery. Somewhere along the line substantial revenue has to be kicked back or those shows would cease production. It is quite possible that many shows cannot be efficiently paid for if they were forced to rely on a PPV scheme, nor is it clear that most consumers would rather pay then watch ads.
I may not agree with their perception of PVRs and I may not even cooperate with them, but I do recognize that they have the right to take the offensive against things of this nature and that your argument is false.