You know I *hate* Harry Potter. Not sure why, but nevertheless I plan to purchase a copy of this just to support the idea.
Having little kids around makes copies necessary. VHS tapes are cheap and durable as far as kids are concerned. Make a copy and let them use the old VCR as often as they want. (Not that I always do this, but sometimes I want to.)
Making a personal copy is ok and should remain so. Maybe someone there gets it. Maybe not, it is likely about the money.
Still, can't help but wonder where this is leading.
Yes it would be nice, but the very elite tools that make the difference for them will be kept in-house. Since they don't distribute them, they have no obligation to make them public. (Maybe they will in the future if the tools are no longer a differentiator (sp?) for them.
Anything that the core OS environment needs to improve will go public. They have no real reason not to. If they hold that stuff back, their in-house burden will grow until they are basically building their own OS. Why not just make the OS a notch better and forget about it?
Ok so this particular studio does not care about TCO. You are probably right about that.
What interests me though is the concept they are following. The technology investments they are making right now will last them a *long* time. (Building both common and in-house tools under Linux.)
This shows the promise that OSS has for everyday business. Most of their basic computing needs can and will (if they let them) be addressed with OSS tools. They will have to invest some to make that happen, but once the investment is made, they are set for a very long time.
Sounds like they have time in the Studios then. I still worry about their ID market though. Perhaps they will just adapt and focus more on entertainment.
It is an interesting time for them in either case.
The current proposals do not allow for a whole lot of video. How is this supposed to work? This could be the beginning of the preferred content model. Download from our network or pay more?
Sounds like a loser for Video on Demand, which I have little interest in anyway. Renting media is not difficult, and has the added bonus for the ability to share with friends during the rental period. Purchasing media has the same advantage plus unlimited viewing.
I am not opposed to transfer rate caps for heavy users provided that the scheme is workable. Maybe offer a few pricing tiers. Those that don't want to worry about their bill can use all they want, but as they exceed their limit, the speed scales back. (Not slammed back to modem rates in one shot.) Offer another tier that allows whatever the customer wants, but they pay extra instead of losing their transfer rates.
What about weekly transfer limits? Or transfer limits that only apply during peak usage? At 4am you should be able to move bits even if you are over the limit.
You know I just thought about that a little. The way the laws are intended to work are subtle indeed.
For you and I, Linux would be outlawed. For the Studios, things would work just fine. They have the lawyers to back them up, and they can just use Linux inside their firewalls.
Since they create the content, it is easy for them to say Linux is ok. Nobody is watching unauthorized copies.
They just don't want Joe citizen to have a user programmable system that allows programs they don't like.
Well, for one, I never said that anyone doing CG will be doing it with Rhino. (You are correct about its ability to be used for CG though.)
I am seeing a lot of smaller design firms shy away from A|W though and they *are* using Rhino and MCAD. For class 'A' surfaces, Studio is a very nice tool. In recent times though, MCAD toolsets include most of what one needs to get there. For the high-end automotive like markets, MCAD does not yet cut it. For most everyone else, MCAD can and does do the job now.
A|W is playing another game that is hard to play. They charge *lots* for a select few features needed by the high-end. This makes their product unattractive to the low end because without those select few features, the lesser products or a smart combination of them can do the job.
Why not lower the price? In my mind they should, but they have waited too long. Lower the price and they lose the revenue from the big boys while only gaining some back from the low-end.
Someone is going to do this and take a *lot* of market and mind-share from A|W, or they will continue to wither away quietly.
Remember, I am a little off topic because I am talking about ID, not CG in this particular case.
Too bad really. (Potatohead this time, not the cow-worker!) I-DEAS is a great modeling package. It user interface has more thought behind it than some software has for its entire development.
I hate to see it running under win32. Most of the color is gone, and all the additional customization features do little to improve the experience while producing bugs that lower the stability of the package...
Not very nice comments in there about SGI. They are true enough though. The O2 is a *great* multimedia desktop machine. Lots of features, small package. Just like the Indy before it.
Compute performance is a real problem though for all but the high end SGI machines. The O2 went EOL this year for all but OEM (Medical and Video apps).
What I find interesting is that the studios are building their own tech to suit their needs. They started this process on SGI machines in order to leverage the rich toolset found in IRIX. Now they are able to build on the open tools found under Linux.
Alias Wavefront (owned by SGI) used to package and sell critical technology to the Studios along with a number of services delivered under NDA. They still do this, but their days are numbered.
Open Source is enabling a new trend toward in-house technology development. Given the high cost of A|W and SGI toolsets plus the added services and consulting required to make them work in creative ways, I am not surprised to find the studios able to just build what they want cheaper. They also are able to create the features that make their workflow better.
Seems like the studios want nothing to do with any sort of lock in with any vendor. Talk about lowering TCO!
Not only does their in-house development allow them to make the most of their time and creative energy, but they get to take advantage of new platforms in the future --without having to re-purchase tools.
They are smart enough to develop common tools that they (and us) can all use while keeping those things that make them special in-house. Too bad more of the mainstream businesses are not able to see this yet. When they do --look out!
So SGI moves back into their niche with IRIX, high end visualization, and parallel computing and serving. What of Alias Wavefront?
They look doomed to me. Maya now is cheap and runs on Linux. Its users develop their own tools with it so A|W maybe gets consulting, but little else. On the Industrial Design side, their Studio Tools package really only appeals to the high end Automotive styling group. Everyone else can use either MCAD tools, or tools like Rhino to get their work done.
This was a great article that does a lot to illuminate just how computing can change under an open platform.
This is also another reason why Microsoft wants OpenGL *dead*.
All of the major MCAD packages use OpenGL for their graphics render engines. OpenGL is good at this. Today I would wager that DirectX whatever version is good as well.
Not an issue for the minor players, but the big boys are still cross platform.
MCAD and high-end analysis packages run on the UNIX platforms and OpenGL enables this.
BTW you can include on your list SolidEdge, Autodesk Inventor, IronCAD (or whatever they are calling it now), and CADKEY. Autodesk and CADKEY used to be UNIX based, but that ended in the early 90's with ACAD 12 (I think) and CADKEY 6 or 7.
Basically all the midrange stuff out there right now is built using the MFC. All of it wants to be high-end CAD. None of it is going to be.
Not a bloody chance. They are married to the MFC and intergrated OLE application model forever. Building on this toolset (no matter how wise) is one of the keys to their business model.
Anyone running MCAD on UNIX is a ripe target for them. Less informed shops that are feeling the one box and it had better be win32 pressure is their target.
Leveraging the win32 intergrated applications is key to their gain in market share. (Which BTW is all they care about.)
They want to be the MCAD extension to Office, not the best tool.
BTW: SGI contributed their XFS filesystem bringing ACL support in the filesystem with SAMBA for Linux. (others may do this, but I am aware of XFS at the moment.)
PTC seems to be first in line to move the MCAD market to Linux. Good for them. Wonder how this will affect the other MCAD market segments. Will people switch?
Maybe just the thought of this will encourage other ports.
Their next generation of products will be built around the WildFire release of Pro/e. This is no big deal because it is in the press release. Interestingly though, they use the M$ IE components on win32 for their web enabled functionality, but use Mozilla for everything else.
Someone around here said mozilla was an important project once... (they were right!)
I think it is cool to see Mozilla being used in such a way. The fact that it was there and capable paved the way for a Linux port that will do anything the win32 one does. (Other UNIXes enjoy that now.)
We've talked to people at "the corporation formerly known as SDRC" more than once about a Linux version. In the end, they said they could only port to so many *nix platforms, so which one did we propose they supplant? We read that to mean "not likely". After all, this was an engineering company at heart (read conservative), and they weren't about to drop a few existing customers for a potential of many more...
Now as a division of EDS, we don't hold any more hope for them than before. EDS has embraced the.NET route, and this is sure to impact the PLM-Solutions division.
I value open source. Things have evolved to the point where I am able to rely on OSS tools to do my home and hobby computing as well as a high percentage of business computing.
In trade for all of these tools, I chose to return the favor by writing something others could use. http://viewstl.sourceforge.net This effort is not stellar from a programmers point of view, but it does fill a need.
If you consider OSS as a barter system, it works pretty well. Those of us who can write code do. Others help with feedback, or perhaps documentation. Still others decide to buy a boxed distro from time to time. (I know this does not directly benefit the authors of the software, but it does contribute back to OSS in general.) You can follow this line of reasoning and find many ways that people benefit from their OSS work.
A very high percentage of everyday computing needs today are now able to be met with OSS tools. The effort required to get here is huge. Once we finish this task, a large percentage of OSS projects will be in update mode, not create mode.
The benefit here is indirect but worth quite a bit if you consider the alternatives. We have together built a reliable computing platform. Personally I value this highly. It is an important check on the control that software companies seek over us.
Going into the future, given that OSS does reach the masses, means that new software development can either come from closed commercially funded interests like it does today, or from open efforts, or both.
The key here is that we all need an open base to work on. OSS preserves choice while providing a necessary check on commercial software development. If there is no OSS then we basically get to develop what others think we should be developing.
I have no problems with running closed commercial binary only code on my Linux machine. If the application fills a need in a way that gives me a good return on my money, I will buy it. This line of thinking really is not any different for either closed or open computing platforms.
I will not however, purchase software that provides little return. Basic software fits into this catagory. Word processors, spreadsheets, image editors, mp3 players, mail readers and web browsers all have been done before. We know how to do them so why pay again each year for the same tools.
As soon as technology matures to the point where high school to mid-college students are capable of providing applications that fill the need, we all have paid enough and need to move on. Most of what I mentioned above fits perfectly.
If this sounds like OSS is being positioned as old tech, maybe it is to a point. Established needs are where the model works best. The audience is large; therefore, more of us have some incentive to make sure the tools are there. If we don't, then they must be paid for.
New tech works in a couple of ways though. Commercial development happens as part of a business plan. The software is written for the specific purpose of making the company shareholders maximum return. This does not mean that it is the best software or approach, it only means that it pays the company bill.
OSS new tech is exciting to me because it is free of the shareholder shackles. This also does not mean that the software is good, but it does mean that all of us have a say in how it all goes. Over the long term as the projects suffer natural selection, really good tech will emerge.
Companies will get theirs done faster, but OSS efforts will be better overall.
So really we all get paid something. Is it cold cash? Maybe, if somebody notices and people end up with jobs. In most cases though, the payback is the freedom to choose how we all get our computing done. It may not pay the bills (which is why we all have our day jobs), but it is important as this young digital age matures.
OSS is needed right now. That alone will ensure that people continue to do the work.
This is not a way out. It is another format for us to buy in order to wean us off of the open CD format.
The "protected higher quality layer" is easily ripped via analog out to any device willing to record it. Afraid of a computer? Try stereo VHS. 6 hours on one tape with very good quality.
All they are really trying to do is find a reason why they can ask $20.00 for a CD! DVD is often less than that! They are realizing that the average ticket price on a new CD sale is dropping now that their price fixing has been outed. I am surprised that they don't start selling a lot more singles to make up the cost per tune!
All they have to do is get a critical number of devices out there that can read this and start releasing SACD-CD only productions. You know they will do it. They are doing it with DVD vs VHS right now!
The MPAA *wants* their annuity revenue badly. They get it from media re-purchase, people backfilling their collection from the catalog. With the high durability of the CD, used buyers get the same experience as the first one does. The more CD media they press, the less they sell out of the back catalog over time.
A few years from now a high percentage of us will only be buying the select pieces of new media that we are interested in. That is what drives them -we can't forget that because they won't.
New media fixes this, pay per stream fixes this, and copy restricted hardware fixes this.
This also marginalizes indie production as well. MPAA dupe asks seller: "What, no high definition layer with extras and such?" Puts all independent productions on the defensive.
Fair use does not mean "ok you can make shitty copies -we don't care." It means we get to make copies for personal reasons period.
We need to keep things simple. No new formats, unless we have to have them period.
I submitted this there as well, just so you all know. I was interested in the responses I might get from either forum.
First, this is a very good article! I have often thought about this, but never really was able to put it quite as well the author did.
Second, I would like to add a piracy method to your collection. Pre-release DVD
screening copies are distributed in advance of an actual DVD release. These
copies get duplicated, or ripped by someone in the chain then are sold for as
little as a dollar overseas. The interesting thing is that these screening
copies are clearly marked as such with additional contact information for those
viewing them. "If you have rented or purchased this DVD, please call
1-800-MPAA-NO-COPIES"
Clearly the quality of the copy has little to do with the incentive for piracy.
Having viewed one of these, I was surprised that anyone could get anything for
them at all. The questionable legality of these things is right there in the
viewing experience!
Finally, my point. I agree with the basic premise of your article in that the
RIAA / MPAA proposals will do little to solve the problem. The answer, as I
see it, has little to do with piracy however.
I believe the primary motivation behind the increasingly draconian copyright
legislation is about control and profit. Media conglomerates in general see
digital technologies as a powerful enabling technologies for "Pay Per View"
(PPV) delivery. PPV technologies provide long tern annuity profits from every
item in the catalog. PPV combined with copyright extension and litigation are
not aimed at protecting anything but profit. If we are forced to get our
content from the source each time, that source is guarenteed profit for as long
as their media content is of any relevance to society.
One more point to consider: Hollywood is not producing new content at the same
rate it is being consumed. WIth analog media, this is a concern, but not a
problem. They get annuity profits from the replacement and resale of older
media. The primary selling point of digital media is long life and high
fidelity. These present a problem today in that the average purchase may
likely be good for the lifetime of the buyer. Our rate of media consumption
is greater than their rate of production. In the near future, if we are
allowed to own personal digital copies, we will only be purchasing new content.
The rights we currently enjoy and the long media life will combine, through
media resale and trading, to sharply reduce the high annuity revenue the media
industry currently enjoys.
It is this future loss of revenue that lies behind the current barrage on our
rights today.
Their answer will be new formats, and delivery methods designed to lead people
away from the durable open media we use today. The switch from analog (vinyl
and VHS) to digital (CD and DVD) made a lot of sense for both sides. Future
format changes have few advantages for us, and many for them.
The media giants just want to keep DECSS underground. Given the intent of the ruling, it has failed. Anyone can find DECSS and the tools to play a DVD they just have to look. Thats the catch. Having to look means that no entity can make commercial use of it. This means that our average joe will not be using Linux to play any serious media.
Funny, I remember during the court proceedings commercial legal DVD players being announced and brought forward as evidence. Ever try to buy one of those? Know anyone that has?
Linux is not something centrally controlled, or closed for that matter. Lots of big players don't like the fact that there is really no way to buy or leverage their technology to gain control. Control is the pillar for most of their business models.
So rather than co-opt the system and compete for dollars, they would rather just not play.
The DMCA has shown its effects, and this ruling is a shining example of legal control where they have no other realistic means.
All of us slashdotters can and will be able to do what we want, but thats really it. If you think about it a little, that suits them perfectly. Most of the money is elsewhere.
Well, in their defense (which I do not do lightly) they needed to get to the top for this one. I'll bet that approvals for these kind of things go to the district level. Given their deadline, the sales cycle using a majority of schools as champions to push the district license through would be too long. So, they go for the big one right off. Working with each school can have its disadvantages as well. Lots of little execptions and administrators to work with. Harder to keep the pressure.
By hitting them all at once, they get some bad PR, but at the same time sharply limit the school districts perception of their avaliable options. Given the time limit, they *know* that the schools are very likely to make the stable choice. Nobody wants to disturb the learning for something like this. --That is the smart part.
Generating (or in their lingo 'driving') revenue this way is, in the longer term, very foolish.
What I referred to in my first post was their handling of the resulting situation. Going in hard has its risks. They know that. Their recent actions are perfect really. They get to pull "good cop bad cop" and divide the new solidarity of the school districts all in one shot. Polish with liberal booze and they come away clean and ready for round three. This also casts doubt on all of the PR. Most of us *know* what they are doing, but the more complicated things get the harder it is to put it in a sound byte without making some error they can challenge. --Again, smart, not wise, but smart.
Microsoft wants to talk to the school districts individually because they want to implement the classic "divide and conquer" tactic. Unfortunately, MS is fighting a lost cause. Schools do not need to pay for Microsoft licensing. But the school districts haven't figured it out yet.
Quote=0
I agree!
However, keeping them ignorant is still pretty easy. There is a lot of pressure to keep our students on the M$ treadmill because everyone else is on it now. You know the "we can't send kids out there with the wrong skills!" argument.
This is exactly why M$ is pushing really hard right now. They know that the next wave or two of OSS improvements will make the difference in its viability for most users. Better to achieve lock-in now than fight that losing battle.
Strange maybe.... I don't know about the modified version of CDE. If you are talking about 4Dwm then we agree. Very few window managers are as well executed as that one is.
As for IRIX, it just works and works. (Suffering a bit of an application shortage at the moment tho.)
Slashdot Mirror
You know I *hate* Harry Potter. Not sure why, but nevertheless I plan to purchase a copy of this just to support the idea.
Having little kids around makes copies necessary. VHS tapes are cheap and durable as far as kids are concerned. Make a copy and let them use the old VCR as often as they want. (Not that I always do this, but sometimes I want to.)
Making a personal copy is ok and should remain so. Maybe someone there gets it. Maybe not, it is likely about the money.
Still, can't help but wonder where this is leading.
Yes it would be nice, but the very elite tools that make the difference for them will be kept in-house. Since they don't distribute them, they have no obligation to make them public. (Maybe they will in the future if the tools are no longer a differentiator (sp?) for them.
Anything that the core OS environment needs to improve will go public. They have no real reason not to. If they hold that stuff back, their in-house burden will grow until they are basically building their own OS. Why not just make the OS a notch better and forget about it?
I saw that one too. It had to do with the ECAD industry. They did a straight port of one of their solvers. Got a 5x increase using Linux.
That article was comparing SUN SPARC to INTEL Linux though so there may be other factors.
5X is still good though. Something is being done right.
Ok so this particular studio does not care about TCO. You are probably right about that.
What interests me though is the concept they are following. The technology investments they are making right now will last them a *long* time. (Building both common and in-house tools under Linux.)
This shows the promise that OSS has for everyday business. Most of their basic computing needs can and will (if they let them) be addressed with OSS tools. They will have to invest some to make that happen, but once the investment is made, they are set for a very long time.
That will affect TCO in a good way.
Sounds like they have time in the Studios then. I still worry about their ID market though. Perhaps they will just adapt and focus more on entertainment.
It is an interesting time for them in either case.
The current proposals do not allow for a whole lot of video. How is this supposed to work? This could be the beginning of the preferred content model. Download from our network or pay more?
Sounds like a loser for Video on Demand, which I have little interest in anyway. Renting media is not difficult, and has the added bonus for the ability to share with friends during the rental period. Purchasing media has the same advantage plus unlimited viewing.
I am not opposed to transfer rate caps for heavy users provided that the scheme is workable. Maybe offer a few pricing tiers. Those that don't want to worry about their bill can use all they want, but as they exceed their limit, the speed scales back. (Not slammed back to modem rates in one shot.) Offer another tier that allows whatever the customer wants, but they pay extra instead of losing their transfer rates.
What about weekly transfer limits? Or transfer limits that only apply during peak usage? At 4am you should be able to move bits even if you are over the limit.
You know I just thought about that a little. The way the laws are intended to work are subtle indeed.
For you and I, Linux would be outlawed. For the Studios, things would work just fine. They have the lawyers to back them up, and they can just use Linux inside their firewalls.
Since they create the content, it is easy for them to say Linux is ok. Nobody is watching unauthorized copies.
They just don't want Joe citizen to have a user programmable system that allows programs they don't like.
Irony indeed.
Well, for one, I never said that anyone doing CG will be doing it with Rhino. (You are correct about its ability to be used for CG though.)
I am seeing a lot of smaller design firms shy away from A|W though and they *are* using Rhino and MCAD. For class 'A' surfaces, Studio is a very nice tool. In recent times though, MCAD toolsets include most of what one needs to get there. For the high-end automotive like markets, MCAD does not yet cut it. For most everyone else, MCAD can and does do the job now.
A|W is playing another game that is hard to play. They charge *lots* for a select few features needed by the high-end. This makes their product unattractive to the low end because without those select few features, the lesser products or a smart combination of them can do the job.
Why not lower the price? In my mind they should, but they have waited too long. Lower the price and they lose the revenue from the big boys while only gaining some back from the low-end.
Someone is going to do this and take a *lot* of market and mind-share from A|W, or they will continue to wither away quietly.
Remember, I am a little off topic because I am talking about ID, not CG in this particular case.
Too bad really. (Potatohead this time, not the cow-worker!) I-DEAS is a great modeling package. It user interface has more thought behind it than some software has for its entire development.
I hate to see it running under win32. Most of the color is gone, and all the additional customization features do little to improve the experience while producing bugs that lower the stability of the package...
Not very nice comments in there about SGI. They are true enough though. The O2 is a *great* multimedia desktop machine. Lots of features, small package. Just like the Indy before it.
Compute performance is a real problem though for all but the high end SGI machines. The O2 went EOL this year for all but OEM (Medical and Video apps).
What I find interesting is that the studios are building their own tech to suit their needs. They started this process on SGI machines in order to leverage the rich toolset found in IRIX. Now they are able to build on the open tools found under Linux.
Alias Wavefront (owned by SGI) used to package and sell critical technology to the Studios along with a number of services delivered under NDA. They still do this, but their days are numbered.
Open Source is enabling a new trend toward in-house technology development. Given the high cost of A|W and SGI toolsets plus the added services and consulting required to make them work in creative ways, I am not surprised to find the studios able to just build what they want cheaper. They also are able to create the features that make their workflow better.
Seems like the studios want nothing to do with any sort of lock in with any vendor. Talk about lowering TCO!
Not only does their in-house development allow them to make the most of their time and creative energy, but they get to take advantage of new platforms in the future --without having to re-purchase tools.
They are smart enough to develop common tools that they (and us) can all use while keeping those things that make them special in-house. Too bad more of the mainstream businesses are not able to see this yet. When they do --look out!
So SGI moves back into their niche with IRIX, high end visualization, and parallel computing and serving. What of Alias Wavefront?
They look doomed to me. Maya now is cheap and runs on Linux. Its users develop their own tools with it so A|W maybe gets consulting, but little else. On the Industrial Design side, their Studio Tools package really only appeals to the high end Automotive styling group. Everyone else can use either MCAD tools, or tools like Rhino to get their work done.
This was a great article that does a lot to illuminate just how computing can change under an open platform.
This is also another reason why Microsoft wants OpenGL *dead*.
All of the major MCAD packages use OpenGL for their graphics render engines. OpenGL is good at this. Today I would wager that DirectX whatever version is good as well.
Not an issue for the minor players, but the big boys are still cross platform.
MCAD and high-end analysis packages run on the UNIX platforms and OpenGL enables this.
BTW you can include on your list SolidEdge, Autodesk Inventor, IronCAD (or whatever they are calling it now), and CADKEY. Autodesk and CADKEY used to be UNIX based, but that ended in the early 90's with ACAD 12 (I think) and CADKEY 6 or 7.
Basically all the midrange stuff out there right now is built using the MFC. All of it wants to be high-end CAD. None of it is going to be.
Then the question is who?
Heard this also. They are getting a lot of requests from Europe. (Germany actually.)
This might affect the use of Alias Studio in Pro/e shops that convert to Linux.
No remote X11 on Alias products, so either they stay with commercial UNIX, win32 or use another alternative like ICEM.
Not a bloody chance. They are married to the MFC and intergrated OLE application model forever. Building on this toolset (no matter how wise) is one of the keys to their business model.
Anyone running MCAD on UNIX is a ripe target for them. Less informed shops that are feeling the one box and it had better be win32 pressure is their target.
Leveraging the win32 intergrated applications is key to their gain in market share. (Which BTW is all they care about.)
They want to be the MCAD extension to Office, not the best tool.
Don't forget IRIX.
BTW: SGI contributed their XFS filesystem bringing ACL support in the filesystem with SAMBA for Linux. (others may do this, but I am aware of XFS at the moment.)
PTC seems to be first in line to move the MCAD market to Linux. Good for them. Wonder how this will affect the other MCAD market segments. Will people switch?
Maybe just the thought of this will encourage other ports.
Their next generation of products will be built around the WildFire release of Pro/e. This is no big deal because it is in the press release. Interestingly though, they use the M$ IE components on win32 for their web enabled functionality, but use Mozilla for everything else.
Someone around here said mozilla was an important project once... (they were right!)
I think it is cool to see Mozilla being used in such a way. The fact that it was there and capable paved the way for a Linux port that will do anything the win32 one does. (Other UNIXes enjoy that now.)
Makes you wonder why we need IE doesn't it?
Submitted by a cow-orker of Potatohead's:
.NET route, and this is sure to impact the PLM-Solutions division.
We've talked to people at "the corporation formerly known as SDRC" more than once about a Linux version. In the end, they said they could only port to so many *nix platforms, so which one did we propose they supplant? We read that to mean "not likely". After all, this was an engineering company at heart (read conservative), and they weren't about to drop a few existing customers for a potential of many more...
Now as a division of EDS, we don't hold any more hope for them than before. EDS has embraced the
I value open source. Things have evolved to the point where I am able to rely on OSS tools to do my home and hobby computing as well as a high percentage of business computing.
In trade for all of these tools, I chose to return the favor by writing something others could use. http://viewstl.sourceforge.net This effort is not stellar from a programmers point of view, but it does fill a need.
If you consider OSS as a barter system, it works pretty well. Those of us who can write code do. Others help with feedback, or perhaps documentation. Still others decide to buy a boxed distro from time to time. (I know this does not directly benefit the authors of the software, but it does contribute back to OSS in general.) You can follow this line of reasoning and find many ways that people benefit from their OSS work.
A very high percentage of everyday computing needs today are now able to be met with OSS tools. The effort required to get here is huge. Once we finish this task, a large percentage of OSS projects will be in update mode, not create mode.
The benefit here is indirect but worth quite a bit if you consider the alternatives. We have together built a reliable computing platform. Personally I value this highly. It is an important check on the control that software companies seek over us.
Going into the future, given that OSS does reach the masses, means that new software development can either come from closed commercially funded interests like it does today, or from open efforts, or both.
The key here is that we all need an open base to work on. OSS preserves choice while providing a necessary check on commercial software development. If there is no OSS then we basically get to develop what others think we should be developing.
I have no problems with running closed commercial binary only code on my Linux machine. If the application fills a need in a way that gives me a good return on my money, I will buy it. This line of thinking really is not any different for either closed or open computing platforms.
I will not however, purchase software that provides little return. Basic software fits into this catagory. Word processors, spreadsheets, image editors, mp3 players, mail readers and web browsers all have been done before. We know how to do them so why pay again each year for the same tools.
As soon as technology matures to the point where high school to mid-college students are capable of providing applications that fill the need, we all have paid enough and need to move on. Most of what I mentioned above fits perfectly.
If this sounds like OSS is being positioned as old tech, maybe it is to a point. Established needs are where the model works best. The audience is large; therefore, more of us have some incentive to make sure the tools are there. If we don't, then they must be paid for.
New tech works in a couple of ways though. Commercial development happens as part of a business plan. The software is written for the specific purpose of making the company shareholders maximum return. This does not mean that it is the best software or approach, it only means that it pays the company bill.
OSS new tech is exciting to me because it is free of the shareholder shackles. This also does not mean that the software is good, but it does mean that all of us have a say in how it all goes. Over the long term as the projects suffer natural selection, really good tech will emerge.
Companies will get theirs done faster, but OSS efforts will be better overall.
So really we all get paid something. Is it cold cash? Maybe, if somebody notices and people end up with jobs. In most cases though, the payback is the freedom to choose how we all get our computing done. It may not pay the bills (which is why we all have our day jobs), but it is important as this young digital age matures.
OSS is needed right now. That alone will ensure that people continue to do the work.
This is not a way out. It is another format for us to buy in order to wean us off of the open CD format.
The "protected higher quality layer" is easily ripped via analog out to any device willing to record it. Afraid of a computer? Try stereo VHS. 6 hours on one tape with very good quality.
All they are really trying to do is find a reason why they can ask $20.00 for a CD! DVD is often less than that! They are realizing that the average ticket price on a new CD sale is dropping now that their price fixing has been outed. I am surprised that they don't start selling a lot more singles to make up the cost per tune!
All they have to do is get a critical number of devices out there that can read this and start releasing SACD-CD only productions. You know they will do it. They are doing it with DVD vs VHS right now!
The MPAA *wants* their annuity revenue badly. They get it from media re-purchase, people backfilling their collection from the catalog. With the high durability of the CD, used buyers get the same experience as the first one does. The more CD media they press, the less they sell out of the back catalog over time.
A few years from now a high percentage of us will only be buying the select pieces of new media that we are interested in. That is what drives them -we can't forget that because they won't.
New media fixes this, pay per stream fixes this, and copy restricted hardware fixes this.
This also marginalizes indie production as well. MPAA dupe asks seller: "What, no high definition layer with extras and such?" Puts all independent productions on the defensive.
Fair use does not mean "ok you can make shitty copies -we don't care." It means we get to make copies for personal reasons period.
We need to keep things simple. No new formats, unless we have to have them period.
I submitted this there as well, just so you all know. I was interested in the responses I might get from either forum.
First, this is a very good article! I have often thought about this, but never really was able to put it quite as well the author did.
Second, I would like to add a piracy method to your collection. Pre-release DVD
screening copies are distributed in advance of an actual DVD release. These
copies get duplicated, or ripped by someone in the chain then are sold for as
little as a dollar overseas. The interesting thing is that these screening
copies are clearly marked as such with additional contact information for those
viewing them. "If you have rented or purchased this DVD, please call
1-800-MPAA-NO-COPIES"
Clearly the quality of the copy has little to do with the incentive for piracy.
Having viewed one of these, I was surprised that anyone could get anything for
them at all. The questionable legality of these things is right there in the
viewing experience!
Finally, my point. I agree with the basic premise of your article in that the
RIAA / MPAA proposals will do little to solve the problem. The answer, as I
see it, has little to do with piracy however.
I believe the primary motivation behind the increasingly draconian copyright
legislation is about control and profit. Media conglomerates in general see
digital technologies as a powerful enabling technologies for "Pay Per View"
(PPV) delivery. PPV technologies provide long tern annuity profits from every
item in the catalog. PPV combined with copyright extension and litigation are
not aimed at protecting anything but profit. If we are forced to get our
content from the source each time, that source is guarenteed profit for as long
as their media content is of any relevance to society.
One more point to consider: Hollywood is not producing new content at the same
rate it is being consumed. WIth analog media, this is a concern, but not a
problem. They get annuity profits from the replacement and resale of older
media. The primary selling point of digital media is long life and high
fidelity. These present a problem today in that the average purchase may
likely be good for the lifetime of the buyer. Our rate of media consumption
is greater than their rate of production. In the near future, if we are
allowed to own personal digital copies, we will only be purchasing new content.
The rights we currently enjoy and the long media life will combine, through
media resale and trading, to sharply reduce the high annuity revenue the media
industry currently enjoys.
It is this future loss of revenue that lies behind the current barrage on our
rights today.
Their answer will be new formats, and delivery methods designed to lead people
away from the durable open media we use today. The switch from analog (vinyl
and VHS) to digital (CD and DVD) made a lot of sense for both sides. Future
format changes have few advantages for us, and many for them.
"Of course I could be wrong..." --Dennis Miller
The media giants just want to keep DECSS underground. Given the intent of the ruling, it has failed. Anyone can find DECSS and the tools to play a DVD they just have to look. Thats the catch. Having to look means that no entity can make commercial use of it. This means that our average joe will not be using Linux to play any serious media.
Funny, I remember during the court proceedings commercial legal DVD players being announced and brought forward as evidence. Ever try to buy one of those? Know anyone that has?
Linux is not something centrally controlled, or closed for that matter. Lots of big players don't like the fact that there is really no way to buy or leverage their technology to gain control. Control is the pillar for most of their business models.
So rather than co-opt the system and compete for dollars, they would rather just not play.
The DMCA has shown its effects, and this ruling is a shining example of legal control where they have no other realistic means.
All of us slashdotters can and will be able to do what we want, but thats really it. If you think about it a little, that suits them perfectly. Most of the money is elsewhere.
Well, in their defense (which I do not do lightly) they needed to get to the top for this one. I'll bet that approvals for these kind of things go to the district level. Given their deadline, the sales cycle using a majority of schools as champions to push the district license through would be too long. So, they go for the big one right off. Working with each school can have its disadvantages as well. Lots of little execptions and administrators to work with. Harder to keep the pressure.
By hitting them all at once, they get some bad PR, but at the same time sharply limit the school districts perception of their avaliable options. Given the time limit, they *know* that the schools are very likely to make the stable choice. Nobody wants to disturb the learning for something like this. --That is the smart part.
Generating (or in their lingo 'driving') revenue this way is, in the longer term, very foolish.
What I referred to in my first post was their handling of the resulting situation. Going in hard has its risks. They know that. Their recent actions are perfect really. They get to pull "good cop bad cop" and divide the new solidarity of the school districts all in one shot. Polish with liberal booze and they come away clean and ready for round three. This also casts doubt on all of the PR. Most of us *know* what they are doing, but the more complicated things get the harder it is to put it in a sound byte without making some error they can challenge. --Again, smart, not wise, but smart.
Bastards.
Quote=1
Microsoft wants to talk to the school districts individually because they want to implement the classic "divide and conquer" tactic. Unfortunately, MS is fighting a lost cause. Schools do not need to pay for Microsoft licensing. But the school districts haven't figured it out yet.
Quote=0
I agree!
However, keeping them ignorant is still pretty easy. There is a lot of pressure to keep our students on the M$ treadmill because everyone else is on it now. You know the "we can't send kids out there with the wrong skills!" argument.
This is exactly why M$ is pushing really hard right now. They know that the next wave or two of OSS improvements will make the difference in its viability for most users. Better to achieve lock-in now than fight that losing battle.
The next coupla years are important.
Their first move was to appear sorry, smooth over the tense situation then, MEET WITH EACH SCHOOL ONE ON ONE.
Diffusing the group is their primary objective. Once this is done, they can continue to manupulate the ones in charge into bad contracts.
PR 101 in action here, I am surprised that these two did not see it coming.
Strange maybe.... I don't know about the modified version of CDE. If you are talking about 4Dwm then we agree. Very few window managers are as well executed as that one is.
As for IRIX, it just works and works. (Suffering a bit of an application shortage at the moment tho.)