I'd agree that having the source code open to all improves security and assures an accurate vote but there is absolutely no evidence to prove this. Many OSS projects have bugs in them regardless of the number of people looking at the code. To add to the problem, not only are there bugs in the code regardless of the number of people looking at it, the release schedule of most projects, "it'll be read when it's ready", there should be no bugs in the code. When the OSS community can prove open source code is more secure due to it being open then perhaps there might be an argument for opening source code for more applications. Until then it's mere speculation and assumptions based not in reality, but in what the OSS community wants to have happen.
"First off, how is this not censorship? They are placing restrictions on the dissemination of something on the basis of content."
It is not censorship because they are not censoring the information, they are merely placing barriers which block certain people from viewing it. Censorship is the suppression of ideas that are objectionable. These games are still going to be on the shelves, they just won't be legally purchasable by minors. Adults can still buy and play them and parents can still purchase them for their kids if they want. While this might seem to be an argument over semantics, it is not.
There is a very fine line between censorship and ratings. Movies are regulated and government requires the MPAA to rate movies based on their content. They do not say movies can or cannot be made, they simply say that if you make a movie with this content it will carry a rating that might not be favorable to a larger viewing audience. Some movie studios might say screw it and take the R or NC-17 rating, others will cut scenes to get the PG-13. Games should be regulated in the same manner. If nothing else, perhaps it will force more game companies to make better games, not one which rely on the same forumla of using the newest Carmack 3D game engine to virtualize killing.
No, the problem is new laws are required to plug the loopholes discovered by those who want to do something not covered by the then current laws. Take the DMCA for instance. This was clearly not a pro-active law. Congress didn't justwake upone morning and say, "hey, copyright could use a little dusting off and be brought up to speed in the digial age." The DMCA is a reactive law brought about because a bunch of pimply faced geeks decided they would flaunt current copyright laws and distribute intellectual property illegally on the internet in a quantity never before possible. The DMCA tried to be as broad as possible to keep loopholes from existing because Congress has learned over time that laws need to be as broad as possible so they don't have to keep coming back to address the same issues again and again.
News laws are also passed to cover advances in technology. Sealbelt and helmet laws are examples of this as are new banking and financial laws covering the ways money can or cannot be distributed electronically. For instance, banks still can't print ther own money even if digital money is more efficient.
Holy shit. You are the second person this week to respond rationally to my comments and not only that you actually capitualted and apoloogized. Do you know something about the end of the world happening?;)
"One other factor to take into account is the shrinking of the public domain."
This is a logical fallacy far too many people arguing for copyright reform make. The public domain is not shrinking, it is simply not expanding as quickly. Once a work is in the public domain, it is in the public domain. Even the Eldred case did not remove works, it simply stopped some works from making it into the public domain at the last possible moment.
However, I still feeel that you are failing to see my point. I'm guessing that you are not a creative professional. I am and I have studied copyright law as an undergrad (audio engineering) and grad student (grphic design). I also understand the creative process and I comprehend where my creative ideas come form. Perhaps I have a more intuitive notion of inspiration vs. plagarism that is difficult to put in words. It's very much liek Potter Stewart's quote which I'll partly paraphrase here, I can't desribe when a work is plagarised and when a work is inspired but "I'll know it when I see it."
You are right aboutone thing though. I agree that the line is blurring but I'm not so sure it's because copyright is becoming less clear or because people are simply narrow minded and not capable of seeing the flipside to the arguments. You apparently are not one if these people which is definitely a rare thing on/.
You only have the right to copy intellectual property you personally own and only for limited uses. You do not have the right to copy your pal's entier CD collection under ANY definition of copyright law and associated legal rulings. By stating "without the right to do so" they are saying that not withstanding issues like fair use it is illegal to make copies of copyrighted material.
Your book/movie example highlights a good example of a derivative work. Copyright strictly protects the creators right here and it's not a terrible thing. You're wrong when you stated "They have no common "expression" (such as a movie character who speaks something written in the book)" because the expression IS the combination of dialog, the character's name, the location of the plot and the plot itself. My point was a screenplay writer could take the thesis the book author presents and write a compelling movie based on this thesis without taking the character names, plot and plot location without infringing upon copyright. Not only that but the public would be that much richer in the end because we would have two original works instead of anoriginal work and a shitload of hacks to weed out.
I agree with much of what you said except for this, "unlimited monopoly of ideas for all time..." Copyright does not protect ideas, it only protects the expression of ideas. That is why, as a creative person, I find it hard to believe the public domain have been so irreparably harmed. One could still create a cartoon character of a mouse and his adventures with other animal friends but the minute they give their mouse red shorts, yellow shoes and white gloves and call him Mickey, they have crossed the line from the idea (a cartoon mouse) to the expression of that idea (Mickey Mouse) which is protected by copyright. Abolish the DMCA, copyright laws will still exost, there is no victory there. Even if copyright went back to the original 14+14 year term and extension, much of what is on P2P networks and streets through Eastrern Europe and the Far East is still illegal. Lessigs fight, whether he knows it or not (and more's the pity if he doesn't) is more about getting stuff for free than it is for somehow protecting the public domain from copyright extensions.
Regardless of their nature as being freely available teasers, they are still protected by copyright law and thus subject to restrictions as to redistribution. Being free does not mean they are not protected by copyright. I cannot use bits and pieces of the movie trailer in another work and I can't directly copy ideas from a game demo simply because they were offered for free.
The RIAA does nto need to grow up or evolve. They hold the contracts on hundreds fo thousands of artists who use the services provided by the RIAA. It is the consumer who needs to grow up. Illegally distributing products on the internet is neither an act of civil disobedience nor a reasonable, "adult" thing to do. P2P networks should be allowed to exist but if the RIAA makes a reasonable request to have material removed from the network, then the P2P network should comply. If they refuse to then they shoudl be considered as co-contributors to intellectual property violations and thusly charged and prosecuted under the law.
If this business model can be toppled by a lone guy in his garage in a legitimate manner, I'm all for it. So far no one wants to be this guy, they simply want to redistribute intellectual property illegally, thinking they are in some way helping the artists. Guess what? Artists don't see a dime until advances are paid back. Guess how advances in future royalties are paid back? You guessed it, sales of albums. If their album is being traded and fewer people are buying it, then the artist is not going to pay back those advances as quickly.
The horse and buggy analogy is pure crap though. As many are quick to state, intellectual property is not physical property and when one redistributes it, they are not stealing from anyone (this is a myth though, see above). Ford did not steal horses and buggies and sell them to the masses. He did not even mass produce horses or buggies. Henry Ford developed a way to mass produce automobiles so more people could buy them for a lot less than what other automobile makers could sell them for. Ford revolutionized an industry in much the same way the lone guy in his garage could revolutionize the music industry. P2P is not the lone guy, nor will it ever be in its current state. P2P will never revolutionize music until musicians themselves start figuring out how to use it for themselves.
I don't know if you were being sarcastic or not but just for your information, this movie looks like it was done in 3DSMAX R4 or R5. There are a couple screenshots in the making of section that clearly show 3DSMAX.
No, this is very similar to Affirmative Action in that to acquire proprietary software one would have to submit in writing a justification for doing so. No such justification would be required for considering and acquiring open source software. In many ways this is worse than AA in that laxzy IT admins might just go with OSS software simply because they don't want the extra hassle of writing a justification for software they'd rather be using.
GDI+ beat Quartz Extreme by a couple of years. A lot of what is going into Longhorn UI wise has been researched at Microsoft long before it gets put into a working application. Quartz Extreme, by the way, does not draw the entire UI in 3D space, it merely processes a lot of the eye candy (transparent windows, drop shadows, genie effect) so OS X doesn't poke along at a snail's pace. The Longhorn UI will use DirectX to draw the UI in 3D space and utilize hardware to accelerate the process.
Really? You think so? Where's that list of satellites and coordinate tracking data? Ok, got it, now where are those encryption hack proggies I got last week? Got....errrr....cdmdrtaco, hi. No, I love your site. It's chock full of insightful, well intentioned comments. I would NEVER try to have you guys shut down. What, this comment? Errr...I don't know where that came from. My keyboard must have typed it on its own. Here, take it.
Hey dumbass, the card has already been bought and paid for. I doubt the greeting card store is going to accept a card with writing in it. I'm guessing though that you do not receive any greeting cards from friends OR family so no need to worry.
This is not a DMCA violation. The DMCA kicks in when a person hacks the crytographic locks to a digital file or medium which protects intellectual property. The DMCA does not make it illegal to distribute or otherwise violate intellectual property via a digital file or medium, even if you lock it down. This is nothing more than your average garden variety copyright violation akin to distributing movies, music and other books via IRC, FTP, P2P or "sneakernet".
"There was a time when fair use laws let me copy a tape for a friend, as long as I didn't make money off it."
No, no, no, no, no, no. Fair Use exceptions have NEVER allowed this, it is simply a myth spread around the internet. The RIAA and MPAA knew they could never realistically enforce the casual copying of intellectual property so they turned a blind eye, but they never condoned the act itself. They did go after larger scalen bootleggers when they surfeced on the radar but there was never as proactive a search for violations of copyright as there is now. Technology is a two-way street. While it allows for Napster to exist, it also allows the RIAA and MPAA to hunt down and prosecute those violating intellectual property laws.
"That's also why they marked it as a digital composition tool, aimed at filmproducers rather than the average joe just wanting to put some flashy-text in his average home-video."
bzzzzztttt...wrong. After Effects has long been the industry standard post production effects applicaiton used in film and television. Sure some studios might use flint, flame or inferno but After Effects has been used in lower budget broadcast and even in some film work. It is far beyond the grasp of "the average joe just wanting to put some flashy-text in his average home-video". Don't let its price tag fool you. AE is a great tool used by many in the film and television industry as the backbone of their workflow.
"The same is not true of the Firebird SQL software. They are in differant spaces and in my opinion are not likely to be confused."
You are forgetting the implied connection between the dB and browser. If one starts to suck it could harm the reputation of the other. It's not as simple as "are they the same thing? No? Then no one should confuse them."
The billiosn of dollars figure is not baloney, it is based on the penalties incurred under US Copyright Law. When you infringe copyrights you don't say "a'right coppa, ya gots me. Here's the scratch for the albums I stole" and simply walk away. Being found guilty of breaking laws come with penalties and in teh case of copyrights, stiff financial penalties per infringement (per song in this case, not per album). These morons would have been better off simply buying the music they listen to.
With your two examples for names you still question why it's so hard to come up with a good name? Harley-Davidson took about two years to come up with the V-ROD motorcycle to commemorate the 100th year H-D has been in existence. As a member of OpenBeOS involved with the renaming process I can personally atest to the excruciating difficulty in sifting through names to come up with something original AND describes the thing you are naming. Don't be so quick to dismiss the complexity and difficulty simply because it's a single word.
...and I'll say it again. If OSS wants to play in the world of business they need to adopt some business attitudes and play by their rules. Deadlines and shipping dates reign supreme and the attitude of "it'll be done when it's done, no sooner" doesn't wash with the suits.
It was stupid when the Dept. of Homeland Security did it and it's going to be stupid when EPIC does it. Not only that but it's going to marginalize the effect EPIC might otehrwise have, placing them in the realm of fringe organizations with nothing better to do then cry wolf and claim the sky is falling. Privacy is important but there needs to be a more measured approach to solving the causes of problems instead of trying to plug a dam that merely springs a leak elsewhere.
I use a whole slew of applications from Sonic Foundry and I find they suit my needs quite nicely. I tend to use Sonic Foundry Acid Pro more than anythignelse but I began using Vegas when it was version 1.0 and I've been quite happy with it. Even though they added video editing to the package they haven't slouched with the audio editing capabilities. Sound Forge is excellent for doing effect editing though I find I use it less and less and just work right in Vegas for most of that sort of work. This allows me to do non-destrucive editing and export single wave or aiff files when I'm done. Anyway, pretty much anything Sonic Foundry makes is excellent audio software. Acid is the only software that lets you edit MIDI via piano roll but Sound Forge can be automated/triggered via MIDI commands. Hopefully Sonic Foundry will add full MIDI editing to Vegas or come up with a stand alone MIDI application.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd agree that having the source code open to all improves security and assures an accurate vote but there is absolutely no evidence to prove this. Many OSS projects have bugs in them regardless of the number of people looking at the code. To add to the problem, not only are there bugs in the code regardless of the number of people looking at it, the release schedule of most projects, "it'll be read when it's ready", there should be no bugs in the code. When the OSS community can prove open source code is more secure due to it being open then perhaps there might be an argument for opening source code for more applications. Until then it's mere speculation and assumptions based not in reality, but in what the OSS community wants to have happen.
"First off, how is this not censorship? They are placing restrictions on the dissemination of something on the basis of content."
It is not censorship because they are not censoring the information, they are merely placing barriers which block certain people from viewing it. Censorship is the suppression of ideas that are objectionable. These games are still going to be on the shelves, they just won't be legally purchasable by minors. Adults can still buy and play them and parents can still purchase them for their kids if they want. While this might seem to be an argument over semantics, it is not.
There is a very fine line between censorship and ratings. Movies are regulated and government requires the MPAA to rate movies based on their content. They do not say movies can or cannot be made, they simply say that if you make a movie with this content it will carry a rating that might not be favorable to a larger viewing audience. Some movie studios might say screw it and take the R or NC-17 rating, others will cut scenes to get the PG-13. Games should be regulated in the same manner. If nothing else, perhaps it will force more game companies to make better games, not one which rely on the same forumla of using the newest Carmack 3D game engine to virtualize killing.
No, the problem is new laws are required to plug the loopholes discovered by those who want to do something not covered by the then current laws. Take the DMCA for instance. This was clearly not a pro-active law. Congress didn't justwake upone morning and say, "hey, copyright could use a little dusting off and be brought up to speed in the digial age." The DMCA is a reactive law brought about because a bunch of pimply faced geeks decided they would flaunt current copyright laws and distribute intellectual property illegally on the internet in a quantity never before possible. The DMCA tried to be as broad as possible to keep loopholes from existing because Congress has learned over time that laws need to be as broad as possible so they don't have to keep coming back to address the same issues again and again.
News laws are also passed to cover advances in technology. Sealbelt and helmet laws are examples of this as are new banking and financial laws covering the ways money can or cannot be distributed electronically. For instance, banks still can't print ther own money even if digital money is more efficient.
Holy shit. You are the second person this week to respond rationally to my comments and not only that you actually capitualted and apoloogized. Do you know something about the end of the world happening? ;)
"One other factor to take into account is the shrinking of the public domain."
/.
This is a logical fallacy far too many people arguing for copyright reform make. The public domain is not shrinking, it is simply not expanding as quickly. Once a work is in the public domain, it is in the public domain. Even the Eldred case did not remove works, it simply stopped some works from making it into the public domain at the last possible moment.
However, I still feeel that you are failing to see my point. I'm guessing that you are not a creative professional. I am and I have studied copyright law as an undergrad (audio engineering) and grad student (grphic design). I also understand the creative process and I comprehend where my creative ideas come form. Perhaps I have a more intuitive notion of inspiration vs. plagarism that is difficult to put in words. It's very much liek Potter Stewart's quote which I'll partly paraphrase here, I can't desribe when a work is plagarised and when a work is inspired but "I'll know it when I see it."
You are right aboutone thing though. I agree that the line is blurring but I'm not so sure it's because copyright is becoming less clear or because people are simply narrow minded and not capable of seeing the flipside to the arguments. You apparently are not one if these people which is definitely a rare thing on
You only have the right to copy intellectual property you personally own and only for limited uses. You do not have the right to copy your pal's entier CD collection under ANY definition of copyright law and associated legal rulings. By stating "without the right to do so" they are saying that not withstanding issues like fair use it is illegal to make copies of copyrighted material.
Your book/movie example highlights a good example of a derivative work. Copyright strictly protects the creators right here and it's not a terrible thing. You're wrong when you stated "They have no common "expression" (such as a movie character who speaks something written in the book)" because the expression IS the combination of dialog, the character's name, the location of the plot and the plot itself. My point was a screenplay writer could take the thesis the book author presents and write a compelling movie based on this thesis without taking the character names, plot and plot location without infringing upon copyright. Not only that but the public would be that much richer in the end because we would have two original works instead of anoriginal work and a shitload of hacks to weed out.
I agree with much of what you said except for this, "unlimited monopoly of ideas for all time..." Copyright does not protect ideas, it only protects the expression of ideas. That is why, as a creative person, I find it hard to believe the public domain have been so irreparably harmed. One could still create a cartoon character of a mouse and his adventures with other animal friends but the minute they give their mouse red shorts, yellow shoes and white gloves and call him Mickey, they have crossed the line from the idea (a cartoon mouse) to the expression of that idea (Mickey Mouse) which is protected by copyright. Abolish the DMCA, copyright laws will still exost, there is no victory there. Even if copyright went back to the original 14+14 year term and extension, much of what is on P2P networks and streets through Eastrern Europe and the Far East is still illegal. Lessigs fight, whether he knows it or not (and more's the pity if he doesn't) is more about getting stuff for free than it is for somehow protecting the public domain from copyright extensions.
"...game demos, movie trailers..."
Regardless of their nature as being freely available teasers, they are still protected by copyright law and thus subject to restrictions as to redistribution. Being free does not mean they are not protected by copyright. I cannot use bits and pieces of the movie trailer in another work and I can't directly copy ideas from a game demo simply because they were offered for free.
The RIAA does nto need to grow up or evolve. They hold the contracts on hundreds fo thousands of artists who use the services provided by the RIAA. It is the consumer who needs to grow up. Illegally distributing products on the internet is neither an act of civil disobedience nor a reasonable, "adult" thing to do. P2P networks should be allowed to exist but if the RIAA makes a reasonable request to have material removed from the network, then the P2P network should comply. If they refuse to then they shoudl be considered as co-contributors to intellectual property violations and thusly charged and prosecuted under the law.
If this business model can be toppled by a lone guy in his garage in a legitimate manner, I'm all for it. So far no one wants to be this guy, they simply want to redistribute intellectual property illegally, thinking they are in some way helping the artists. Guess what? Artists don't see a dime until advances are paid back. Guess how advances in future royalties are paid back? You guessed it, sales of albums. If their album is being traded and fewer people are buying it, then the artist is not going to pay back those advances as quickly.
The horse and buggy analogy is pure crap though. As many are quick to state, intellectual property is not physical property and when one redistributes it, they are not stealing from anyone (this is a myth though, see above). Ford did not steal horses and buggies and sell them to the masses. He did not even mass produce horses or buggies. Henry Ford developed a way to mass produce automobiles so more people could buy them for a lot less than what other automobile makers could sell them for. Ford revolutionized an industry in much the same way the lone guy in his garage could revolutionize the music industry. P2P is not the lone guy, nor will it ever be in its current state. P2P will never revolutionize music until musicians themselves start figuring out how to use it for themselves.
I don't know if you were being sarcastic or not but just for your information, this movie looks like it was done in 3DSMAX R4 or R5. There are a couple screenshots in the making of section that clearly show 3DSMAX.
No, this is very similar to Affirmative Action in that to acquire proprietary software one would have to submit in writing a justification for doing so. No such justification would be required for considering and acquiring open source software. In many ways this is worse than AA in that laxzy IT admins might just go with OSS software simply because they don't want the extra hassle of writing a justification for software they'd rather be using.
GDI+ beat Quartz Extreme by a couple of years. A lot of what is going into Longhorn UI wise has been researched at Microsoft long before it gets put into a working application. Quartz Extreme, by the way, does not draw the entire UI in 3D space, it merely processes a lot of the eye candy (transparent windows, drop shadows, genie effect) so OS X doesn't poke along at a snail's pace. The Longhorn UI will use DirectX to draw the UI in 3D space and utilize hardware to accelerate the process.
Really? You think so? Where's that list of satellites and coordinate tracking data? Ok, got it, now where are those encryption hack proggies I got last week? Got....errrr....cdmdrtaco, hi. No, I love your site. It's chock full of insightful, well intentioned comments. I would NEVER try to have you guys shut down. What, this comment? Errr...I don't know where that came from. My keyboard must have typed it on its own. Here, take it.
Hey dumbass, the card has already been bought and paid for. I doubt the greeting card store is going to accept a card with writing in it. I'm guessing though that you do not receive any greeting cards from friends OR family so no need to worry.
This is not a DMCA violation. The DMCA kicks in when a person hacks the crytographic locks to a digital file or medium which protects intellectual property. The DMCA does not make it illegal to distribute or otherwise violate intellectual property via a digital file or medium, even if you lock it down. This is nothing more than your average garden variety copyright violation akin to distributing movies, music and other books via IRC, FTP, P2P or "sneakernet".
No, no, no, no, no, no. Fair Use exceptions have NEVER allowed this, it is simply a myth spread around the internet. The RIAA and MPAA knew they could never realistically enforce the casual copying of intellectual property so they turned a blind eye, but they never condoned the act itself. They did go after larger scalen bootleggers when they surfeced on the radar but there was never as proactive a search for violations of copyright as there is now. Technology is a two-way street. While it allows for Napster to exist, it also allows the RIAA and MPAA to hunt down and prosecute those violating intellectual property laws.
"That's also why they marked it as a digital composition tool, aimed at filmproducers rather than the average joe just wanting to put some flashy-text in his average home-video."
bzzzzztttt...wrong. After Effects has long been the industry standard post production effects applicaiton used in film and television. Sure some studios might use flint, flame or inferno but After Effects has been used in lower budget broadcast and even in some film work. It is far beyond the grasp of "the average joe just wanting to put some flashy-text in his average home-video". Don't let its price tag fool you. AE is a great tool used by many in the film and television industry as the backbone of their workflow.
"The same is not true of the Firebird SQL software. They are in differant spaces and in my opinion are not likely to be confused."
You are forgetting the implied connection between the dB and browser. If one starts to suck it could harm the reputation of the other. It's not as simple as "are they the same thing? No? Then no one should confuse them."
The billiosn of dollars figure is not baloney, it is based on the penalties incurred under US Copyright Law. When you infringe copyrights you don't say "a'right coppa, ya gots me. Here's the scratch for the albums I stole" and simply walk away. Being found guilty of breaking laws come with penalties and in teh case of copyrights, stiff financial penalties per infringement (per song in this case, not per album). These morons would have been better off simply buying the music they listen to.
With your two examples for names you still question why it's so hard to come up with a good name? Harley-Davidson took about two years to come up with the V-ROD motorcycle to commemorate the 100th year H-D has been in existence. As a member of OpenBeOS involved with the renaming process I can personally atest to the excruciating difficulty in sifting through names to come up with something original AND describes the thing you are naming. Don't be so quick to dismiss the complexity and difficulty simply because it's a single word.
You should have checked your correction with preview too. I think you meant to say "I meant 'least' not lease". [Corrections are in bold]
...and I'll say it again. If OSS wants to play in the world of business they need to adopt some business attitudes and play by their rules. Deadlines and shipping dates reign supreme and the attitude of "it'll be done when it's done, no sooner" doesn't wash with the suits.
It was stupid when the Dept. of Homeland Security did it and it's going to be stupid when EPIC does it. Not only that but it's going to marginalize the effect EPIC might otehrwise have, placing them in the realm of fringe organizations with nothing better to do then cry wolf and claim the sky is falling. Privacy is important but there needs to be a more measured approach to solving the causes of problems instead of trying to plug a dam that merely springs a leak elsewhere.
10 to 1 you're going to be one of the first in line to watch The Matrix: Reloaded.
I use a whole slew of applications from Sonic Foundry and I find they suit my needs quite nicely. I tend to use Sonic Foundry Acid Pro more than anythignelse but I began using Vegas when it was version 1.0 and I've been quite happy with it. Even though they added video editing to the package they haven't slouched with the audio editing capabilities. Sound Forge is excellent for doing effect editing though I find I use it less and less and just work right in Vegas for most of that sort of work. This allows me to do non-destrucive editing and export single wave or aiff files when I'm done. Anyway, pretty much anything Sonic Foundry makes is excellent audio software. Acid is the only software that lets you edit MIDI via piano roll but Sound Forge can be automated/triggered via MIDI commands. Hopefully Sonic Foundry will add full MIDI editing to Vegas or come up with a stand alone MIDI application.