Interesting comment. Perhaps lawsuits are the first step in natural selection toward the end of a species? That might be a bit hopeful for everything from spammers to the RIAA, but who knows?
Of course, if the RIAA/MPAA are any indication, the spammers will just unite into a giant "standards" organization, get a good set of lawyers to stop spammers that are spamming using their *innovative* techniques for free, and charge people to spam them.
This subject definitely intrigues me, but I think such broad generalizations about cultures are dangerous and miss some of the interesting details.
What I personally find ironic of all the talk of libertarianism attached to the technology boom is that I have not found large amounts of libertarians in the young, high-tech groups that I have frequented, but then again I have found that most of such groups in which I have been involved have been made up of more of the "geeks" (excuse the generalization, but I am trying to expedite the writing of this comment) than the people more interested in making money.
Although I am certainly not averse to the concept of making loads of money as an engineer (both to be comfortable financially and be able to contribute to good causes), I have been more interested in the technology and am very much a liberal rather than a libertarian. I do not want the government to interfere with privacy or free speech on the Internet, but I was a true supporter of the anti-trust case against Microsoft, which was government intervention at its best.
The people that strike me as having a libertarian bent (i.e., not necessarily libertarians but sharing the government-back-out-of-business standpoint) are the self-proclaimed "visionaries." These people are seemingly the semi-techies that read Wired as their source of tech news instead of more in-depth sources (I'm sorry, but that magazine is more about colorful pictures than real technology reporting). They also seem to simply be business students/recent grads that are looking to make a quick buck and masquerade themselves as understanding the technology (even to the point of having the hubris, at least after their IPOs, to call themselves "visionaries").
It's just a thought. I think it would be interesting, though, if someone would do a study on the success vs. failure of start-ups compared to who actually started them, the "visionaries" or actual scientists (man I hate the word technologist used in a non-sci-fi context:)
Does anyone else here see the least bit of hypocrisy in that the RIAA/MPAA are trying to make producers liable for the actions of users?
What about the "free expression" rights always demanded by movie and music makers, so-called artists who are making media even more sensational, whether through violence or sex, simply to increase profits? Popular culture (not art, mind you, since that is not a product like popular culture is) has been defended on the grounds of free expression for years, but it is a product and is in many ways responsible for the sensational reactions that viewers (i.e., users) have.
The way I see it is this:
(0) If code is seen as protected speech, then we should be in the clear.
(1) If code is not defined as speech, then coders are in trouble since computer code will be a product and thus the producers, programmers, will be liable.
(2) If code is speech, then it might not simply be protected speech. In this case, the case needs to be made that code is information, and that if the producers are still to be held liable, then producers of other information sold as products, like musicians (see here for my arguments on music as information), should be held similarly liable, or vice versa.
I personally think code is protected speech; that it can be useful as a tool only occurs if you have a compiler. I would agree that, especially when money is not being made off of it (i.e., somewhat different from Napster's case), code should be considered like an art form, deserving free expression rights.
The bottom line, though, is that coders need to get vocal, and not just on discussion forums. Write the mainstream press, CNN, the Washington Post, the New York Times, with letters to the editor; write something that outlines your positions in ways others will understand. Heck, I'll post it on DigitalRenegades. Just SAY something that others will hear.
Though it may sometimes not seem that the US is a democracy, it is. And lawmakers always want to keep their jobs by getting your vote.
Although it is definitely a good idea to promote retirement saving, I must disagree.
Social security is meant for just what the name suggests: security. Too many people, including GWB, seem to be under the impression that social security is a retirement account; this is not the case. Social security is insurance. The main problem with GWB's social security plan (which I must say is about the worst of the ideas he could have tried to take from Clinton; that he did does not anger me, of course, being that Clinton has done so to Republicans many times in the past, but at least on better issues) is that it is risky to put money into the market.
During these good times, people can say easily that not having made such a plan was a "missed opportunity," but when Clinton took office eight years ago during a recession and $300 billion deficit, no one foresaw these good times. The problem with such a social security plan is that the only people that can afford to take the risk with the money in the market are those that really do not rely on social security. If the market were to take a dive, what would all of the low-to-middle income people do since their social security money would be gone?
In my opinion, the social security plan mirrors many of the GOP plans in that they really only benefit the rich, which does not help to continue the economic prosperity (we know trickle-down economics do not work due to Reagan, so let's not argue that).
Personally, I do not see why people, in the free software community especially, are so willing to just let mainstream media and business characterize all users of Gnutella, etc. as thieves and pirates (not to say that a large amount of those people are not on Napster, etc. though).
It is true that the free software movement is different in many ways from the free music debate. Free software supporters do not advocate piracy as a means to fight the big software companies; instead, free software supporters say essentially
"make it yourself" and then the "it will be better" part includes both "free (as in speech)" and usually develops the "quality" aspect as well.
But how does a listener (i.e., user) of music (you can argue if this is information until you are blue in the face, but that is not the main point here) make his or her own music to replace that of the music industry? In this, the free music debate cannot be solved in the same way the free software debate can.
Like it or not, piracy is a more integral part of the "civil disobedience" aspect of the free music debate. Or at least it is at the moment.
Piracy can be replaced by the alternatives being proposed by sites like fairtunes.com. But that cannot happen if services like Gnutella are somehow outlawed.
So, we have to make our voices heard to support the continuance of services like Gnutella; as I see it, Napster has helped to draw attention to the free music debate but in all the wrong ways. There are very legitimate uses of the technology, but we cannot simply allow the terms such as "piracy" and "stealing" to continue in use since that undermines the entire host of alternatives to the RIAA.
If Gnutella, etc. are made illegal, then how exactly are these alternatives ever supposed to get off the ground?
SB
Editor, DigitalRenegades -- Give your opinions a permanence on the web; submit and make your voice heard.
I find that in Mr. Katz's article there are several points where it would be helpful to consider the concept of "fairness" in a broader perspective than simply in relation to the prices charged by recording companies, for example.
When I first heard the saying, "Information wants to be free," applied to the music copyright debate, I thought it was pointless. Music is entertainment, not information, one would at least first think. But, it came to me when thinking of the value of music as art that perhaps we should not be so quick to write off the consideration of music as information.
When we consider the natural right of free expression to be applied to the arts and humanities, frequently we come to the conclusion that having free expression is integral to a thriving artistic culture. But in guaranteeing free expression, for example, to musicians, is society being treated fairly by then having to pay simply to be exposed to the products of free expression?
I like to consider myself a big supporter of free speech/free expression/etc., but I also have a distaste for some of the "popular culture" (what I would call crap) that is being produced by the entertainment industry. However, as was seen in the previous crusades against explicit lyrics in music, for example in the ones led by Tipper Gore, the most that has been achieved by "concerned parents" organizations, for instance, has been the label of "explicit" lyrics now attached to many albums. The music industry continues to use the argument of free expression to allow it to produce sensational products, including rap by such "artists" as Eminem and Dr. Dre (just examples, since the "Up in Smoke" tour just rolled through my area).
But why, I should ask, should we as a society guarantee these musicians completely free expression? Are they truly artists?
The recent MP3 debate sheds some light on this question since copyrights, one can see, have had the effect at least in the music industry of turning music, the art, into music, the product. By demanding complete control of their works, "artists" like Lars Ulrich restrict the products of the free expression rights that society has vowed to protect. But in this control and subsequent requirement of payment, these "artists" limit the people that can be exposed to their works to only those socio-economic classes that can afford such exposure.
Thus, the lower socio-economic classes, who are very much a part of society, are not treated fairly by artists for whom those classes have guaranteed free expression rights. Also, those classes then cannot try to attempt any control of the content of those music products because of the right of free expression that has been granted to musicians.
The conclusion that I think arises from realizing that art is information (and therefore music as a form of art is information) is that if the current copyright system is to persist, then everyone must be guaranteed the ability to access the works of the artist in some way (hence, services like Napster, Gnutella, etc.) if the musicians are to be guaranteed the right to free expression.
Otherwise, if musicians like Lars Ulrich want to have "complete" control of their works, then they should have to answer to "concerned parents" organizations concerning the content of their music, being that their music is a product and not the art protected by free expression. That we restrict pornography from minors, for example, shows how things that are products can have their content controlled by organizations like those of "concerned parents."
I do not wish that musicians be controlled by parental organizations, but in the sense of fairness, I think that businesses should have to live up to standards of propriety. If music is to be a business, then let it be controlled. Art is not responsible for the downfall of society, but sensational popular culture products made sensational to make more money do not help artistic culture to survive and grow.
www.DigitalRenegades.org -- Good comments or editorials getting unfortunately buried? Submit them to get them published on the web for all to see.
In reality, the Napster shutdown is not the worst fallout that could result from this case. Napster is essentially a business that has as its strategy using the trading of copyrighted works as a means to make money for itself. In this sense, Napster is not significantly better than the RIAA in terms of exploitation of other people, though the RIAA companies certainly have exploited more artists and customers in their actions.
The worst of the outcome in this case lies in how digital copyright violators are perceived by the mainstream media (and especially the representatives in DC) after this case is over. The business aspect of Napster has unfortunately been associated with the users of Napster, but in reality (as shown by the earlier articles on the insides of Napster, Inc.) the reasoning and purposes of the two groups of people differs widely.
Napster users could very well being using Gnutella, Freenet, or any other service (including OpenNAP servers) that allows the "piracy" of copyrighted works. The justification of those users would still have the same validity, though, regardless of the service being used. The Napster business group, though, as described above, is essentially planning to exploit the copyrighted works of others to make money. Due to the fact that Napster, Inc. is being sued, though, the users will likely be branded "pirates" and "thieves" along with the company due to the inevitable adoption by the mainstream media of the RIAA's lexicon.
So, in conclusion, I would say that losing Napster is not the bad part of this case. It is the possiblity that users of those services, people who violate digital copyrights but feel that such action is justified in some way, will result from this case with a bad reputaion, unable to be taken seriously since they are perceived simply as criminals, just like those once-famous Napster executives.
SB
www.DigitalRenegades.org -- Are your opinions being unfortunately buried in discussion boards? Submit essays, short bytes, or article responses to be posted concerning why digital copyright violations are widespread and continue to occur.
Although the mailing lists mentioned above are certainly good for insightful discussion, I do not think that mailing lists will serve well to get our voices heard since there is usually a lot of discussion that can bury good, insightful, and intelligent comments. I think it would be best to try to unify the voices as to why the current copyright violations are NOT simply wrong or immoral.
I have started a web site, www.digitalrenegades.org, for anyone that would like to write something to be posted in the form of an essay, a short opinion, or as a response to an article (in the mainstream media, for example). If you have any suggestions please feel free to e-mail. I think we need to unify our dissent to show that these violations are not immoral but ultimately caused at least in part by corporate domination.
First, I must begin saying that IANAL. However, based on the little knowledge that I do have, I can see that technically Microsoft's copyright is violated by the posting of the specification in comments.
However, I think this is a true freedom of innovation case (that does involve free speech to a degree, especially concerning the posting of links) because of the fact that what is driving this entire issue is the fact that Microsoft took a public specification and tried to make it its own property.
The future of Free Software and the GNU General Public License does depend on the outcome of this case in part because of the fact that Microsoft, by attaching a restrictive license to their "standard," attempts to keep information that can be reached publicly as a trade secret. The so-claimed "copyright" that Microsoft holds is on the so-called "standard" that they have created, and if this "standard" can be restricted, then the hopes of the Free Software community to develop interoperability diminish.
What is really at stake here, and what should be at stake in the DVD DeCSS case, is the part of the DMCA that speaks of being able to go above copyrights for the purpose of interoperability. If/. has to remove even the standard, then Samba's hopes for being interoperable with Windows 2000 may largely fall, and if that is the case, then the consequences could reverberate throughout the Free Software community.
On the Washington Post Article - /. Power?
on
Hump Day Quickies
·
· Score: 2
Ok, I am an avid reader of the Post but I am afraid that they are acting like typical media by finding some pundit who will automatically take the other side of the story.
If you have not read the article, essentially the writer found some guy to say that he does not think/. will last as a type of new media because it will stop being rebellious when its readership grows too large.
HELLO?!!!
This sounds like the exact same argument being thrown out about why free software will not succeed (i.e., that developers will stop supporting it because it will stop being revolutionary). If the media would stop attaching a label to things, taking it upon themselves to define a purpose for other people, then maybe there would not be all this incessant talk.
Who ever said/. is read because it is rebellious? I sure don't read it for that reason. Personally, I would be very happy if other news media would do their own work and stop trying to copy/.'s stories. The only thing that is going to ruin things like/. and free software is the propensity of the world to make everything have its 15 minutes of fame to be a "sensational" story.
I would agree that many, including myself, expected a little much from Phantom Menace (I think it was a little more devoid of plot/acting than the others, but that's just IMO), and I have seen how young kids today do enjoy it just as the first were enjoyed.
On to my main point, it surprises me some to see so many "It's just a movie" comments since I would have expected more flames from the die-hard Star Wars fans. I agreed with Brin's article in many of the points he made (though I think Star Trek is fairly crappy; Brin seems to like Star Trek because it poses more intellectual questions, though I find that in both Star Trek and Star Wars the characters just look stupid if they try to get philosophical; neither series seems to be a good SciFi venue for posing such questions; Space Odyssey and Foundation do better, IMO). What continues to anger me about The Phantom Menace are the die-hard "Let's beat Titanic's sales" Star Wars fans who seem to be willing to drop money as if they're in some cult. That is distasteful (and can be applied to any cult following, like that of Titanic). Hopefully Star Wars won't get too much like the cult behind Star Trek (though it may already be there) and will remain something fun and maybe for the next less commercialized (like that will ever happen).
(And hopefully Lucas will stop parading himself as some genius when Episode I settled that issue against him.)
Okay, I want to first make clear that the special effects in this film were excellent. Truly, Lucasfilm has made a monumental step in creating artificial worlds on screen. But that's only visual creation. For creating a world in which one finds oneself immersed in an intricate story, such as in Episodes IV, V, and VI, this film is a complete travesty.
If you have not seen Star Wars: Episode I yet, than I will summarize the movie without actually giving anything away. That is because there is nothing new in this movie, except for a story that could be told in a couple of pages in a magazine. Take Independence Day (parts of that ending were such a rip off), the other three episodes (again, parts of that ending were such a rip off), Ben Hur (cool, yet totally unnecessary race scene), some visual images of spy planes (that Nubian cruiser sure looked a little like, oh, maybe, the SR-71 Blackbird?! What happened to originality?!) and benches (which most of the other ships looked like), and then to top it off some derogatory accents (come on, the stupid sidekick had a stereotypical Caribbean-sounding accent, and the naive enemies had stereotypical Asian accents), and you ve got Star Wars: Episode I. I mean, come on, Independence Day was more original than this story, and that's besides thehorrible dialog.
Don't get me wrong; to think I care a lot about quality of acting is wrong. Lucas cannotdirect actors worth anything, as was shown in the "excellent" acting in the original Star Wars. Why was Return of the Jedi the best of the three? I can tell you that one reason is that Lucas wasn't directing it. This movie makes me surprised that Lucas actually wrote any parts of theoriginal three. Were these "prequel" movies actually written before the other three? I can't answer that definitively, except to say that it sure would surprise me. Some of the lines in this one were practically ripped straight out of the other three. And the end scene? One of my friends rightly commented that he expected to see a bunch of creatures (like Ewoks) dancing after the big finale, and he did! Predictable? Yes. Good story? A resounding NO. I would even characterize myself as somewhat of a Star Wars fanatic, but like this movie I cannot. This just plain sucked. I would sure regret quitting my job to see this if I had.
Do NOT, I plead with you, go see the next movie in theaters. WAIT until it is on video, and then also wait until it isn't a new release so it isn't as expensive. If the dialog in this one is any indication of what's to come in the second, there is NO way anyone should put him or herself to the pain of listening to Anakin wooing Amidala in the second prequel, which is a "love story," according to Lucas. This movie was actually worse in everything relative to Independence Day. Big special effects, no plot; almost sounds like Independence Day. At leastID4 was more original.
This article seems to reinforce a growing trend in FUD; Microsoft, as usual, has been leading the pack frequently. Their argument is that they are all about innovation. Well, I'll be the first to say that they are full of it. OSS certainly does take business away from proprietary software companies. But, one must ask before automatically assuming that OSS is bad, does the proprietary software OSS replaces deserve to be charged for? I think back to when I was still using Windows and how a certain FTP product (which wasn't very Cute) was charged for. I also remember how a tool to update the time of a system using the Internet was shareware and charged for. Do these tools really deserve to be charged for?
OSS has come to fill a niche that has long been waiting to be filled. The crime against innovation occurs when software companies, who are employing usually very capable programmers, such as Microsoft, waste their programmers' time by having them work on FTP programs or other more simple programs where not much room for innovation exists. Just taking a look at the FTP programs that are beginning to come out OSS and comparing them to the commercial Windows ones shows how there is no reason why paid programmers should be wasting their time writing FTP programs when a hobbyist programmer can do just as good a job for fun. In my opinion, the company making the FTP program should be run out of business since they are not applying the talents they have to worthy challenges.
Operating systems follow somewhat the same argument, though they also have an even greater need for innovation than everything else since operating systems run everything. Thus, teaming thousands of minds together to improve an operating system (such as Linux) rather than a programming team of even a couple hundred will likely produce better results.
I say that as long as college students and hobbyist programmers exist, OSS will exist; and it should exist, because without it the world will be left with greedy suits running businesses in which the only innovations occur in FTP programs and the like. Proprietary software should be charged for when it is worth the charge, and not when it is a waste of intelligent programmers' talents.
I would agree that the credit definitely goes to the makers of free software, but the importance of RedHat's distribution should not be downplayed. RedHat is not the only Linux, and it is true that people should be made to know this. However, RedHat is different from other distros because they have made a shrink-wrapped, supported, package. RedHat does not deserve the award for best OS for the technical side (software, etc.), but they do deserve the award for making a working business model for free software that can survive. Also, the new adopters of Linux that are using RedHat's distro in business do so because they now have someone to go to for support. Linux hackers in general I think have too great a tendency to attack any entity that wants to make Linux a bit friendlier for the beginning user. GNOME and RedHat's use of the RPM for distribution are important because they are giving a way for new users (like myself, for instance, who just compiled his own kernel outside of an RPM) to jump onto the Linux bandwagon. I have been using RedHat for a good half year now and was about to go to Debian (still am) because the RPM I at first thought was too restrictive, but I am finding that, though the dependencies are annoying, overall it is not too bad. RedHat should be watched to make sure they don't venture too far from the Linux mainstream (and create their own), but nevertheless they should not be attacked for garnering those Win95/98 OS newbies that are frightened by GNU/Linux's complexities.
While reading the NY Times article something struck me. Does anyone else find it kind of ironic how publications so many times seem to choose the word "cynics" for describing the pronunciation of "Linux"?
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting comment. Perhaps lawsuits are the first step in natural selection toward the end of a species? That might be a bit hopeful for everything from spammers to the RIAA, but who knows?
Of course, if the RIAA/MPAA are any indication, the spammers will just unite into a giant "standards" organization, get a good set of lawyers to stop spammers that are spamming using their *innovative* techniques for free, and charge people to spam them.
This subject definitely intrigues me, but I think such broad generalizations about cultures are dangerous and miss some of the interesting details.
:)
What I personally find ironic of all the talk of libertarianism attached to the technology boom is that I have not found large amounts of libertarians in the young, high-tech groups that I have frequented, but then again I have found that most of such groups in which I have been involved have been made up of more of the "geeks" (excuse the generalization, but I am trying to expedite the writing of this comment) than the people more interested in making money.
Although I am certainly not averse to the concept of making loads of money as an engineer (both to be comfortable financially and be able to contribute to good causes), I have been more interested in the technology and am very much a liberal rather than a libertarian. I do not want the government to interfere with privacy or free speech on the Internet, but I was a true supporter of the anti-trust case against Microsoft, which was government intervention at its best.
The people that strike me as having a libertarian bent (i.e., not necessarily libertarians but sharing the government-back-out-of-business standpoint) are the self-proclaimed "visionaries." These people are seemingly the semi-techies that read Wired as their source of tech news instead of more in-depth sources (I'm sorry, but that magazine is more about colorful pictures than real technology reporting). They also seem to simply be business students/recent grads that are looking to make a quick buck and masquerade themselves as understanding the technology (even to the point of having the hubris, at least after their IPOs, to call themselves "visionaries").
It's just a thought. I think it would be interesting, though, if someone would do a study on the success vs. failure of start-ups compared to who actually started them, the "visionaries" or actual scientists (man I hate the word technologist used in a non-sci-fi context
SB
Does anyone else here see the least bit of hypocrisy in that the RIAA/MPAA are trying to make producers liable for the actions of users?
What about the "free expression" rights always demanded by movie and music makers, so-called artists who are making media even more sensational, whether through violence or sex, simply to increase profits? Popular culture (not art, mind you, since that is not a product like popular culture is) has been defended on the grounds of free expression for years, but it is a product and is in many ways responsible for the sensational reactions that viewers (i.e., users) have.
The way I see it is this:
(0) If code is seen as protected speech, then we should be in the clear.
(1) If code is not defined as speech, then coders are in trouble since computer code will be a product and thus the producers, programmers, will be liable.
(2) If code is speech, then it might not simply be protected speech. In this case, the case needs to be made that code is information, and that if the producers are still to be held liable, then producers of other information sold as products, like musicians (see here for my arguments on music as information), should be held similarly liable, or vice versa.
I personally think code is protected speech; that it can be useful as a tool only occurs if you have a compiler. I would agree that, especially when money is not being made off of it (i.e., somewhat different from Napster's case), code should be considered like an art form, deserving free expression rights.
The bottom line, though, is that coders need to get vocal, and not just on discussion forums. Write the mainstream press, CNN, the Washington Post, the New York Times, with letters to the editor; write something that outlines your positions in ways others will understand. Heck, I'll post it on DigitalRenegades. Just SAY something that others will hear.
Though it may sometimes not seem that the US is a democracy, it is. And lawmakers always want to keep their jobs by getting your vote.
SB
Editor, DigitalRenegades
Although it is definitely a good idea to promote retirement saving, I must disagree.
Social security is meant for just what the name suggests: security. Too many people, including GWB, seem to be under the impression that social security is a retirement account; this is not the case. Social security is insurance. The main problem with GWB's social security plan (which I must say is about the worst of the ideas he could have tried to take from Clinton; that he did does not anger me, of course, being that Clinton has done so to Republicans many times in the past, but at least on better issues) is that it is risky to put money into the market.
During these good times, people can say easily that not having made such a plan was a "missed opportunity," but when Clinton took office eight years ago during a recession and $300 billion deficit, no one foresaw these good times. The problem with such a social security plan is that the only people that can afford to take the risk with the money in the market are those that really do not rely on social security. If the market were to take a dive, what would all of the low-to-middle income people do since their social security money would be gone?
In my opinion, the social security plan mirrors many of the GOP plans in that they really only benefit the rich, which does not help to continue the economic prosperity (we know trickle-down economics do not work due to Reagan, so let's not argue that).
Personally, I do not see why people, in the free software community especially, are so willing to just let mainstream media and business characterize all users of Gnutella, etc. as thieves and pirates (not to say that a large amount of those people are not on Napster, etc. though).
It is true that the free software movement is different in many ways from the free music debate. Free software supporters do not advocate piracy as a means to fight the big software companies; instead, free software supporters say essentially "make it yourself" and then the "it will be better" part includes both "free (as in speech)" and usually develops the "quality" aspect as well.
But how does a listener (i.e., user) of music (you can argue if this is information until you are blue in the face, but that is not the main point here) make his or her own music to replace that of the music industry? In this, the free music debate cannot be solved in the same way the free software debate can.
Like it or not, piracy is a more integral part of the "civil disobedience" aspect of the free music debate. Or at least it is at the moment.
Piracy can be replaced by the alternatives being proposed by sites like fairtunes.com. But that cannot happen if services like Gnutella are somehow outlawed.
So, we have to make our voices heard to support the continuance of services like Gnutella; as I see it, Napster has helped to draw attention to the free music debate but in all the wrong ways. There are very legitimate uses of the technology, but we cannot simply allow the terms such as "piracy" and "stealing" to continue in use since that undermines the entire host of alternatives to the RIAA.
If Gnutella, etc. are made illegal, then how exactly are these alternatives ever supposed to get off the ground?
SB
Editor, DigitalRenegades -- Give your opinions a permanence on the web; submit and make your voice heard.
I find that in Mr. Katz's article there are several points where it would be helpful to consider the concept of "fairness" in a broader perspective than simply in relation to the prices charged by recording companies, for example.
When I first heard the saying, "Information wants to be free," applied to the music copyright debate, I thought it was pointless. Music is entertainment, not information, one would at least first think. But, it came to me when thinking of the value of music as art that perhaps we should not be so quick to write off the consideration of music as information.
When we consider the natural right of free expression to be applied to the arts and humanities, frequently we come to the conclusion that having free expression is integral to a thriving artistic culture. But in guaranteeing free expression, for example, to musicians, is society being treated fairly by then having to pay simply to be exposed to the products of free expression?
I like to consider myself a big supporter of free speech/free expression/etc., but I also have a distaste for some of the "popular culture" (what I would call crap) that is being produced by the entertainment industry. However, as was seen in the previous crusades against explicit lyrics in music, for example in the ones led by Tipper Gore, the most that has been achieved by "concerned parents" organizations, for instance, has been the label of "explicit" lyrics now attached to many albums. The music industry continues to use the argument of free expression to allow it to produce sensational products, including rap by such "artists" as Eminem and Dr. Dre (just examples, since the "Up in Smoke" tour just rolled through my area).
But why, I should ask, should we as a society guarantee these musicians completely free expression? Are they truly artists?
The recent MP3 debate sheds some light on this question since copyrights, one can see, have had the effect at least in the music industry of turning music, the art, into music, the product. By demanding complete control of their works, "artists" like Lars Ulrich restrict the products of the free expression rights that society has vowed to protect. But in this control and subsequent requirement of payment, these "artists" limit the people that can be exposed to their works to only those socio-economic classes that can afford such exposure.
Thus, the lower socio-economic classes, who are very much a part of society, are not treated fairly by artists for whom those classes have guaranteed free expression rights. Also, those classes then cannot try to attempt any control of the content of those music products because of the right of free expression that has been granted to musicians.
The conclusion that I think arises from realizing that art is information (and therefore music as a form of art is information) is that if the current copyright system is to persist, then everyone must be guaranteed the ability to access the works of the artist in some way (hence, services like Napster, Gnutella, etc.) if the musicians are to be guaranteed the right to free expression.
Otherwise, if musicians like Lars Ulrich want to have "complete" control of their works, then they should have to answer to "concerned parents" organizations concerning the content of their music, being that their music is a product and not the art protected by free expression. That we restrict pornography from minors, for example, shows how things that are products can have their content controlled by organizations like those of "concerned parents."
I do not wish that musicians be controlled by parental organizations, but in the sense of fairness, I think that businesses should have to live up to standards of propriety. If music is to be a business, then let it be controlled. Art is not responsible for the downfall of society, but sensational popular culture products made sensational to make more money do not help artistic culture to survive and grow.
www.DigitalRenegades.org -- Good comments or editorials getting unfortunately buried? Submit them to get them published on the web for all to see.
In reality, the Napster shutdown is not the worst fallout that could result from this case. Napster is essentially a business that has as its strategy using the trading of copyrighted works as a means to make money for itself. In this sense, Napster is not significantly better than the RIAA in terms of exploitation of other people, though the RIAA companies certainly have exploited more artists and customers in their actions.
The worst of the outcome in this case lies in how digital copyright violators are perceived by the mainstream media (and especially the representatives in DC) after this case is over. The business aspect of Napster has unfortunately been associated with the users of Napster, but in reality (as shown by the earlier articles on the insides of Napster, Inc.) the reasoning and purposes of the two groups of people differs widely.
Napster users could very well being using Gnutella, Freenet, or any other service (including OpenNAP servers) that allows the "piracy" of copyrighted works. The justification of those users would still have the same validity, though, regardless of the service being used. The Napster business group, though, as described above, is essentially planning to exploit the copyrighted works of others to make money. Due to the fact that Napster, Inc. is being sued, though, the users will likely be branded "pirates" and "thieves" along with the company due to the inevitable adoption by the mainstream media of the RIAA's lexicon.
So, in conclusion, I would say that losing Napster is not the bad part of this case. It is the possiblity that users of those services, people who violate digital copyrights but feel that such action is justified in some way, will result from this case with a bad reputaion, unable to be taken seriously since they are perceived simply as criminals, just like those once-famous Napster executives.
SB
www.DigitalRenegades.org -- Are your opinions being unfortunately buried in discussion boards? Submit essays, short bytes, or article responses to be posted concerning why digital copyright violations are widespread and continue to occur.Although the mailing lists mentioned above are certainly good for insightful discussion, I do not think that mailing lists will serve well to get our voices heard since there is usually a lot of discussion that can bury good, insightful, and intelligent comments. I think it would be best to try to unify the voices as to why the current copyright violations are NOT simply wrong or immoral.
I have started a web site, www.digitalrenegades.org, for anyone that would like to write something to be posted in the form of an essay, a short opinion, or as a response to an article (in the mainstream media, for example). If you have any suggestions please feel free to e-mail. I think we need to unify our dissent to show that these violations are not immoral but ultimately caused at least in part by corporate domination.
First, I must begin saying that IANAL. However, based on the little knowledge that I do have, I can see that technically Microsoft's copyright is violated by the posting of the specification in comments.
/. has to remove even the standard, then Samba's hopes for being interoperable with Windows 2000 may largely fall, and if that is the case, then the consequences could reverberate throughout the Free Software community.
However, I think this is a true freedom of innovation case (that does involve free speech to a degree, especially concerning the posting of links) because of the fact that what is driving this entire issue is the fact that Microsoft took a public specification and tried to make it its own property.
The future of Free Software and the GNU General Public License does depend on the outcome of this case in part because of the fact that Microsoft, by attaching a restrictive license to their "standard," attempts to keep information that can be reached publicly as a trade secret. The so-claimed "copyright" that Microsoft holds is on the so-called "standard" that they have created, and if this "standard" can be restricted, then the hopes of the Free Software community to develop interoperability diminish.
What is really at stake here, and what should be at stake in the DVD DeCSS case, is the part of the DMCA that speaks of being able to go above copyrights for the purpose of interoperability. If
Ok, I am an avid reader of the Post but I am afraid that they are acting like typical media by finding some pundit who will automatically take the other side of the story.
/. will last as a type of new media because it will stop being rebellious when its readership grows too large.
/. is read because it is rebellious? I sure don't read it for that reason. Personally, I would be very happy if other news media would do their own work and stop trying to copy /.'s stories. The only thing that is going to ruin things like /. and free software is the propensity of the world to make everything have its 15 minutes of fame to be a "sensational" story.
If you have not read the article, essentially the writer found some guy to say that he does not think
HELLO?!!!
This sounds like the exact same argument being thrown out about why free software will not succeed (i.e., that developers will stop supporting it because it will stop being revolutionary). If the media would stop attaching a label to things, taking it upon themselves to define a purpose for other people, then maybe there would not be all this incessant talk.
Who ever said
I would agree that many, including myself, expected a little much from Phantom Menace (I think it was a little more devoid of plot/acting than the others, but that's just IMO), and I have seen how young kids today do enjoy it just as the first were enjoyed.
On to my main point, it surprises me some to see so many "It's just a movie" comments since I would have expected more flames from the die-hard Star Wars fans. I agreed with Brin's article in many of the points he made (though I think Star Trek is fairly crappy; Brin seems to like Star Trek because it poses more intellectual questions, though I find that in both Star Trek and Star Wars the characters just look stupid if they try to get philosophical; neither series seems to be a good SciFi venue for posing such questions; Space Odyssey and Foundation do better, IMO). What continues to anger me about The Phantom Menace are the die-hard "Let's beat Titanic's sales" Star Wars fans who seem to be willing to drop money as if they're in some cult. That is distasteful (and can be applied to any cult following, like that of Titanic). Hopefully Star Wars won't get too much like the cult behind Star Trek (though it may already be there) and will remain something fun and maybe for the next less commercialized (like that will ever happen).
(And hopefully Lucas will stop parading himself as some genius when Episode I settled that issue against him.)
Okay, I want to first make clear that the special effects in this film were excellent. Truly, Lucasfilm has made a monumental step in creating artificial worlds on screen. But that's only visual creation. For creating a world in which one finds oneself immersed in an intricate story, such as in Episodes IV, V, and VI, this film is a complete travesty.
If you have not seen Star Wars: Episode I yet, than I will summarize the movie without actually giving anything away. That is because there is nothing new in this movie, except for a story that could be told in a couple of pages in a magazine. Take Independence Day (parts of that ending were such a rip off), the other three episodes (again, parts of that ending were such a rip off), Ben Hur (cool, yet totally unnecessary race scene), some visual images of spy planes (that Nubian cruiser sure looked a little like, oh, maybe, the SR-71 Blackbird?! What happened to originality?!) and benches (which most of the other ships looked like), and then to top it off some derogatory accents (come on, the stupid sidekick had a stereotypical Caribbean-sounding accent, and the naive enemies had stereotypical Asian accents), and you ve got Star Wars: Episode I. I mean, come on, Independence Day was more original than this story, and that's besides thehorrible dialog.
Don't get me wrong; to think I care a lot about quality of acting is wrong. Lucas cannotdirect actors worth anything, as was shown in the "excellent" acting in the original Star Wars. Why was Return of the Jedi the best of the three? I can tell you that one reason is that Lucas wasn't directing it. This movie makes me surprised that Lucas actually wrote any parts of theoriginal three. Were these "prequel" movies actually written before the other three? I can't answer that definitively, except to say that it sure would surprise me. Some of the lines in this one were practically ripped straight out of the other three. And the end scene? One of my friends rightly commented that he expected to see a bunch of creatures (like Ewoks) dancing after the big finale, and he did! Predictable? Yes. Good story? A resounding NO. I would even characterize myself as somewhat of a Star Wars fanatic, but like this movie I cannot. This just plain sucked. I would sure regret quitting my job to see this if I had.
Do NOT, I plead with you, go see the next movie in theaters. WAIT until it is on video, and then also wait until it isn't a new release so it isn't as expensive. If the dialog in this one is any indication of what's to come in the second, there is NO way anyone should put him or herself to the pain of listening to Anakin wooing Amidala in the second prequel, which is a "love story," according to Lucas. This movie was actually worse in everything relative to Independence Day. Big special effects, no plot; almost sounds like Independence Day. At leastID4 was more original.
This article seems to reinforce a growing trend in FUD; Microsoft, as usual, has been leading the pack frequently. Their argument is that they are all about innovation. Well, I'll be the first to say that they are full of it. OSS certainly does take business away from proprietary software companies. But, one must ask before automatically assuming that OSS is bad, does the proprietary software OSS replaces deserve to be charged for? I think back to when I was still using Windows and how a certain FTP product (which wasn't very Cute) was charged for. I also remember how a tool to update the time of a system using the Internet was shareware and charged for. Do these tools really deserve to be charged for?
OSS has come to fill a niche that has long been waiting to be filled. The crime against innovation occurs when software companies, who are employing usually very capable programmers, such as Microsoft, waste their programmers' time by having them work on FTP programs or other more simple programs where not much room for innovation exists. Just taking a look at the FTP programs that are beginning to come out OSS and comparing them to the commercial Windows ones shows how there is no reason why paid programmers should be wasting their time writing FTP programs when a hobbyist programmer can do just as good a job for fun. In my opinion, the company making the FTP program should be run out of business since they are not applying the talents they have to worthy challenges.
Operating systems follow somewhat the same argument, though they also have an even greater need for innovation than everything else since operating systems run everything. Thus, teaming thousands of minds together to improve an operating system (such as Linux) rather than a programming team of even a couple hundred will likely produce better results.
I say that as long as college students and hobbyist programmers exist, OSS will exist; and it should exist, because without it the world will be left with greedy suits running businesses in which the only innovations occur in FTP programs and the like. Proprietary software should be charged for when it is worth the charge, and not when it is a waste of intelligent programmers' talents.
That's innovation for you.
SB
I would agree that the credit definitely goes to the makers of free software, but the importance of RedHat's distribution should not be downplayed. RedHat is not the only Linux, and it is true that people should be made to know this. However, RedHat is different from other distros because they have made a shrink-wrapped, supported, package. RedHat does not deserve the award for best OS for the technical side (software, etc.), but they do deserve the award for making a working business model for free software that can survive. Also, the new adopters of Linux that are using RedHat's distro in business do so because they now have someone to go to for support. Linux hackers in general I think have too great a tendency to attack any entity that wants to make Linux a bit friendlier for the beginning user. GNOME and RedHat's use of the RPM for distribution are important because they are giving a way for new users (like myself, for instance, who just compiled his own kernel outside of an RPM) to jump onto the Linux bandwagon. I have been using RedHat for a good half year now and was about to go to Debian (still am) because the RPM I at first thought was too restrictive, but I am finding that, though the dependencies are annoying, overall it is not too bad. RedHat should be watched to make sure they don't venture too far from the Linux mainstream (and create their own), but nevertheless they should not be attacked for garnering those Win95/98 OS newbies that are frightened by GNU/Linux's complexities.
While reading the NY Times article something struck me. Does anyone else find it kind of ironic how publications so many times seem to choose the word "cynics" for describing the pronunciation of "Linux"?