The way I understand contract law and natrual law, is that contracts are a two way binding agreement that cannot be imposed on 3rd party's who are not part to the contract, they can also not impose on the moral nature of free will (eg contracts to follow a religion, or to be a slave, or to give up your free speech rights etc...).
Click/shrink wraps don't meet any of those criteria - especially if you consider that the right to copy is a natural law right, like the free speech, the right to create, and freedom of expression. They were a fradulent form of contract, I'm glad we got rid of them.
There are those who genuinely believe that copyrights are some inherent property right and intend to use the internet to leverage controll of information to every corner of the planet. In this scope they have proposed UTICA, the DMCA, infinite extensions, and hardware controlls whenever possible. They just don't get that the entire value of the information age encompases the unadulterated free flow of information to everywhere and everyone.
Unfortunatley, nowdays they are causing a massive economic problem as technology and paradigms pass them by. The software revenue giants Like Microsoft, are completely locked out of the greatest new paradigm in software - Linux and free software. The revenue giants like the movie and music industry are completely locked out by the greatest new paradigm in media - unhibited p2p. Maginify this across zillions of businesses and industries and long behold you have a massive economic problem that will not go away with the war on Iraq, but rather with the disapearance of copyrights. Getting rid of UTICA is a good first step, now all we need to do is get the weed at the root.
Let me put this straight, just because an institution calles something a right doesn't mean that it is. This is as true with calling copyrights a right today as it was in the 1850's when controlling slaves was called a property right. Rights are not about controll, but liberties. But copyrights are about controll, and the DMCA is about taking actions to secure that form of controll - and now people act supprised when all of a sudden their liberties start disapearing. Sorry, but this wouldn't happen if copyrights were a true right, and neither would the infinite extensions. True rights don't have expirations, phony ones or otherwise.
And the EULA is not a contract, and copyrights are not an enforcement. Since when did contract law become binging on 3rd parties who don't even agree with it? this is exactly what copyrights do. And what if someone sent you $100 in an envelope that said on the outside "by opening this I have the right to send thugs over and collect $200 in interest from you and your friends that you share it with" - this is fradulent contract law in any other context.
in the 1850's they called slavery a property, rather than a form of controll; today they call copyrights a form of property
in the 1850 they thought that the entire purpose of the industrial revolution was to use inventions like the cotton gin to expand the size of their plantations for unlimited controll and profit. Today people think the information age is about using the internet to leverage their copyright holdings for infinite and unlimited reach.
"I have no incentive to grow cotton without slaves", "freeing slaves is common theivery", "the great wealth of the plantation system show's it's goodness", "I put effort into getting them slaves" sould alot like "artists have no incentive to create... etc" , "copying is piracy", and "the great financial success of the movie and software industries is owed to copyrights". etc...
And how about the market crash of the 1850's when all sorts of experimental business ventures involving industrial technology crashed. (dot com bust?)
even a civil war happened next, today we have a war on terrorisim?
The problem isn't the DMCA, but that the era of copyrights is over and people, especially in the entertainment industry, can't deal with it. I think civil disobedience of copyrights whenever possible (like people are doing now) is a much more effective way. It will force change from the outside and not the inside. It will get the problem at the root.
But what if Moores law is too slow?
on
Forget Moore's Law?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Everyone seems to be acting like Moore's law is too fast, that over the next centruy our technology could never grow as fast as it predicts. However, consider for a moment that perhaps it's too slow, that technology can and will grow faster than it's predictions like it or not. Yes silicon has limits, but physics wise - there is no law I know of inherent in the universe that says mathematical calculations can never be calculated faster than xyz, or the rate of growth in calculation ability can never accellerate faster than abc. These constraints are defined by human limits, not physical ones.
In fact, it could be argued that Moore's law is slowing down progress because inverstors see any technology that grows faster than it predicts as too good to be true, and therefore too risky to invest in. However, from time to time when companies have been in dire straights to outdo their competitors "magical" things have happened that seem to have surpassed it for at least brief periods. Also, from what I understand, the rate of growth in optical technology *IS* faster than moores law, but people expect it to fizzle off when it reaches the abilities of silicon - I doubt it.
The last time Intel was declaring the death of Moores law was when they were under heavy attack from predictions that they couldn't match advances in RISC technology. Funny, when they finally redesigned their CPU with RISC underpinnings - these death predictions silently faded away. (at least till now) I wonder what's holding them back this time?
I think a lot of people have this same question. But speaking for myself - why work thru the system? I believe it is inherently corrupt, and our strengths lie in thchnology like encryption and decentralized p2p networks, that will do far more to create the change we need for the better and relieve us of the copyright beast riding our backs than any legal manuvers I can think of.
Other than to maybe hold back the atacking dogs another day or two while we consolidate our strengths and technologies - I just cant see a reason to ever rely on or even expect the system to change and embrace our best interests unless it is forced to from the outside.
As you indicated, UI standards are still standards. Just because something has pretty pointie and clickies does not make it easy to use. Have you ever tried sitting an old lady down and teaching her on a mac, their still confused. (even though admitedly much less so than MS windows)
Renember CDE? it was supposed to be the ultimate agreed upon X/UNIX standard, but anytime it started to go anywhere - everyone found it in their best interest to fork in seperate directions, so it never improved without constant and refreshed initiatives. It was a circus. At least with Gnome, (and GIMP) we can have confidence that it will go somewhere - we can have confidence in it's momentum, that those fusterations can be ironed out in time rather than constantly be dug up again and again.
In a way, closed software has driven a wedge between those who want to accomplish technical tasks, and those who long for simplistic beauty.
Now both of these groups would be well advised to believe in free software and strive to make it work for them, or they have destined themselves to suffer needlessly.
At least in part, because they make more money each time they re-invent the wheel, and what's in their best interest is not in the users best interest.
With free software, it is just as difficult and technical - but long term standards are allowed to emerge and be built on, learnt slow or fast, used all or just some. You can form an education and a culture arround them, you can build learning, sharing, and application into that culture so that it becomes more and more second hand as society moves onto other things, and as those who really want to can specialize and grow as fast as their able to without artifical or closed limits.
The acceptance of closed software as normal commercial behavior has caused a lot of collateral damage, and I think this is one of the symptoms.
If every company lost say, a million $ worth of patents, but in doing so gained access to billions of $ worth of patents - then that would be a net gain for everyone, wouldn't it?
Contrary to popular belief, I don't think patents are good for society. Necissity is the mother of all invention, not a patnet. It simply amazes me how stubbornly people refuse to consider that these crazy things are simply the philosophy of patnets being brought to their logical conclusion.
In fact, how do we know that this is not a trick by the RIAA only to distract us from a much more effective solution, e.g. civil disobedience of copyright law?
I really love the EFF, but we are crazy to think that this can be solved from within the system. For God sake, it is the RIAA's abuse of the system that has gotten us here to begin with. Nothing has changed. They are the ones inside the pocket, not us; they are the ones who are masters of playing the game, not us; If we play on their turf, we'll be screwed.
They are still witch hunting and fear mongering millions of teens who listen to music on the one hand, and still going full blast to toss out the 1st and 4th amendments on the other. Sorry, but these are not people who play by the rules. Yep, Their ways have made it quite clear that we only have one real option, and that is for all of us to ignore, disobey, and blow off copyrights whenever possible. These people are playing an all or npothing game, if we don't accept that and act accordingly we will only hurt ourselves.
Civil disobedience will do more to end the DMCA and the abuse of copyrights than all the other stuff combined. I really love the EFF, but they are wrong - the system will not change unless we force it to from the outside.
For real results we must do everything in our power to ignore, blow-off, disobey, disrespect, and encourage others to not accept copyright monopolies inspite of all the cheezy guilt trips and threats that they have laid on us.
This is absolutely cool. The big value I see in this is in networking, and communications. Cell phone towers, tv stations, and internet backbones could in theory be replaced by spreading smart-dust arround town. The dust would automatically route from particle to particle to the correct phone, tv station, radio station, or internet IP address according to how you accessed it, and even automatically figure out the correct protocool. You wouldn't even be required to subscribe to an ISP or an pnone service provider, the dust would just route independently. if you needed more bandwidth in your connectivity, simply buy a bucket or two of smart dust and spread it arround, perhaps walk along the road and spread it arround like seed, or put it in a medium sized area and 50billion smart dusts will act and behave like a single transmitter.
other cool application I could see are painting your sterio on the wall. the smart dust in the paint would automatically configure itself to resonate and listen to your voice to tell it what radio station to listen to, it would tune to the station and then vibrate sounds accordingly in perfict coordination. the same logic could be used for painting a tv screen on the wall, where smart dust could be configured to emit coordinated frequencies of light rather than sound.
If that's Marxisim then copyrights are Facisim
on
Copyright Rumblings
·
· Score: 1
Seesh, if the govt fixed the supply and demand in any other market people would scream bloody murder that it's Marxisim, but when they restrict the natural supply of information - all of a sudden it's capitalisim. Bullshit, information has no natural limits on supply, since when did capitalisim tosses out the law of supply and demand?
That's like if the govt gave Ford a monopoly on making cars and then had the balls to call it free-market because they could license shares of that monopoly. What a crock, if anything, information should be less restricted than commodities not more restricted.
I totally agree with you, first if getting rid of copyrights causes an artist to loose say 10K worth of 'ip' but gains them access to over a billion from everyone else - then that is a net gain for everyone. And that's the whole problem - information doesn't have natural limits in supply and demand like comodoties do, to treat it like is does is just stupid and maybe even fradulent. If the govt gave ford a monopoly on making cars, and then called it free market because they could license that right to other people - people would call it a fraud. Information should be less regulated than comodities, not more regulated.
second, another thing is that 'incentive' is just an outright terrible foundation for a property right. The moral and historical foundation of property derives from the fact that property has natural physical limits in supply and demand. I may not have an incentive to grow strawberries unless I can plant them in your yard. You may not have an incentive to produce cottin without owning slaves on the plantation. And it is biased because it ignores the other side, I may not have an incentive to manage networks unless I can freely copy information. This attitude that artists are gods and everyone else who has a need or desire to copy is a piece of shit is just dishonest.
which brings up the third issue. Copyrights don't help artists or creators. For every one that makes it big, 9999 artists who are just as good are living in near dirt poverty. and the overwhelming number of copyrights are held not by artists but large companies.
Also, look at all the effects related to copyright. the failures of hollywood culture, the price gouging of college text books that would be cheaper to xerox, all the anti-trust microsoft issues, the stunning and often unpredicted success of technologies like Linux, apache, if not tcp/ip and the internet itself.
Finally, things are changing fast. Information is just too easy to copy or manipulate, in order to effective controll any of it - they will half to try and controll all of it.
I advise that you read up on the civil war and all the arguments they used to support slavery as a false property right, the incentive argument, the I put money and effort into getting them argument, the you are a thief if you steal one argument, the look at the great financial success of the plantation system argument, the it's a form of property - not a form of controll argument, the it's legal and therefore moral arguent. It is amazing how history repeats itself, even down to the stock fallout of 1850, even down to the plantations trying to microregulate all the other industries and states, Just as it hit the fan then, it is hitting the fan now - watch out.
This is a move that is a desperate gamble by the RIAA to win a struggle they are losing. An act that has more to do with not knowing what else to do, than a concrete plan based in logic and well-thought out strategy.
On the contrary, I think they know exactly what they are doing. Like the rapeist who cunningly and quitely slips his victim some poison rather than chase her down and beat her senseless - they have changed their tactics but not their stripes. Infinite extensions, the DCMA, and now an attempt to which-hunt ISP's, are still going full blast. It is not over till the fat lady sings, not resignes;) Don't believe them for a second, nothing has changed.
Even if she resigns, things will get worse - not better. Nothing has changed, they have held themselves accountable to ramming copyrights down our throat, even if it means tossing out the 1st and 4th amendment and more. Just as the plantation masters of the 1850's believed that the entire purpose of the industrial revolution was to use inventions like the cotton-gyn to expand their plantations for unlimited controll and profit, modern day copyright lords believe the internet is the leverage tool that they will use to ram copyrights down everyones throat, and controll every last bit of content in existence.
Information is simply too easy to manipulate and copy, either they will half to controll all of it, or none of it. And you had better bet that their goal is to controll all of it - they have not changed one bit. Sorry, it's not over till the fat lady sings. Copyrights, the DMCA, infinite extensions, warrentless searches and seizures, and more are still here and still kicking everybody's but. Dont buy it for a second - the fundamental facts have not changed one bit.
The moral and historical foundation of copyright derives from artists not being businessmen, and needing to be protected from scams, fraudlent deals, and meanspirited publication.
Where in the heck did this foundation come from? It certainly didn't come from the copyright act of England, nor America where the stated goal of copyrights is to bring works into the public domain. Yeah right, they sure seem to have made Hollywood and Publishers honest. PS: How come they own most the copyrights and not the creators?
We, as a civilization, have an interest in encouraging the advancement of science (patents) and art (copyright). The fact that they tend to intermingle and co-inspire just strengthens the argument.
The fact that they intermingle tends to show why they are so unworkable. 99% of what we speak, read, and know was copied from somewhere else. Also if getting rid of copyrights causes one person to loose a million worth of IP, but gains them access to trillion worth of IP - then that is a net gain.
Most of the ten thousand in "dirt poverty" are such because they suck. A small fraction are there because they haven't done anything worthy yet. An even smaller percentage is there because they haven't found the right publisher yet.
Sorry, but distribution of talent or skill doesn't even closely resemble the distribution of wealth. Infact, some would argue that there's an inverse relationship.
Were it not for the possiblity of copyright, very very few of these authors would have bothered to show anyone a copy of their book--and even less would be published or in print.
That is wrong, and the proof is all the writers and artists who wrote stuff before copyrights became common. (eg Mozart)
Kindly tell me your home address, date of birth, full name, Social Security number, credit card number, expiration date, bank number, place of employment, parent's full names, sexual orientation, religion, political affiliation, and when you're going to be out of the house for the next week and where the valuables are.
That is a great argument for using things like digital certificates instead of imposed centralized record keeping, but not a good one for copyrights, sorry. (PS copyright law does not protect database information in the US)
They don't take it on faith, they use their brains: without copyright protection, there is a huge disincentive to produce material for public consumption. Why would I write a book if the day after it was published, someone could re-publish it in their own name?
I said copyrights not plagiarism. Trust me, if someone wants to copy a Madonna CD, I will not accuse them of being Madonna (whose work is probably all someone elses anyhow). But if they insisted then that would be a matter of fraud, not copyrights.
Besides why did Mozart write his music, why did Linus write a UNIX kernel, why the Mona Lisa, Why the Pietta? Why the renaissance for 500 years before the 1st copyright ever existed? If the necissity of copyright protection is not the issue then please explain.
1st off, the moral and historical foundation of property derives from the fact that not everybody can use something at the same time, not from monopolies granted by a king in return for not publishing bad things about the monarchy
2nd, copyrights are a fraud in that they don't help creators that much. Often you'll hear it cried from the rooftops that the artist is king and that anybody who finds a need to copy is a self centered brat that offers nothing of value to society. Perhaps this is intentional as to distract from the fact that for every artist that makes it big, 10000 are in dirt poverty.
3rd, they are worthless as a free market property right. If I said I had no incentive to grow apples unless I could plant them in your yard, or I said that I had no incentive to grow cotton without owning slaves on the plantation - people would see it as the worthless arguments that they are, but if I say I have no incentive to bring things into the public domain without a copyright monopoly - they just take it on faith, they don't even question it. If the govt gave someone a monopoly on growing peaches and then called it free market because he could buy and sell shares of that monopoly - people would see it for what it is, a fraud. The same is true with copyrights. Since peoples activities have a natural limit in supply and demand, and not information, it is the activities that should be equated to market value and not information.
4th, information is so easy to copy and manipulate that we are quickly reaching a point where either all of it must be controlled or none of it. The copyright industries know that and so should you.
But if enough people break the copyright, will the other courts of the land (not to mention the law enforcement agencies) really apply the law? That seems doubtful. Any thoughts on that?
I think they will try to apply it, but we should still practice and preach civil disobedience at every chance we get anyhow. The whole reason that they HAD an expiration date to begin with was because they are NOT an inherent right. So how about if I turn it arround and say that the "right to copy" is a moral right that exists above government like freedom of the press, religion, and speech.
It's time to get rid of copyright monopolies once and for all, and we have the technology to do it. People who create are NOT gods and people who copy are NOT self centered SOB's that will never make a contribution to society, and most people do both. As if copyrights ever benefited more than 1 out of 10,000 artists anyhow. As if the out of touch Disney culture and Hollywood shouldn't have clued us in a long time ago. As if people who copy are akin to pirates who board ships and kill people. As if copyrights ever had a moral equivalence to physical property. This is just sooo much crap - it's all or nothing now.
- that the DMCA and laws like it are simply logical progression of copyrights. You can't tell people that they have certain types of rights and never expect them to never try and secure those rights. To expect so would be hypocritical and is just as wrong as the DMCA is. Information is so easy to copy and manipulate that copyrights are simply not going to be workable unless all information is controlled or none of it. It simply amazes me to hear people cry bloody murder about the DMCA, but never even consider the root of the problem.
All I ever get in reply is this crazy propaganda about the poor starving artist and how they are they are so valuable and holy while anybody elese in society who may have the need to copy things is a worthless piece of cr*p incapable of adding any value to society. Perhaps this is just to distract from the fact that for every artist that makes it, there are 10,000 living in dirt poverty who copyrights haven't helped one darn bit. Perhaps it's to keep people from noticing how bad copyrights really are.
While this culture certainly seems more rational about copyrights than ours is, the simple truth is you can't tell people that they have "rights" and then never expect them to effectively secure them, that is just as wrong as the copyright lords are. The DMCA and other laws like it are just that, people trying to secure rights that we have told them that they have, and are the main reason copyrights are so evil. The effects of copyrights are like a vine that will never stop growing until we cut it off at the root. Information is so easy to copy and manipulate that in the long run there can be no middle ground. Either all information will be controlled or none of it.
I don't exactly know what you mean by objective reality. But, when I make my arguments I typically try to assume that existence is rational, it is non deterministic (eg. people have free choice), and it is inherently good (eg. people are not inherently evil by nature) I don't think I'm assuming anything else, but perhaps may miss things because I am finite.
Interesrtingly enough many of the founding fathers were aware of copyright's potential problems, that's probably why they have an expiration date to begin with. It used to be that copyrights were granted by the King of England to publishers in return for not saying bad things about the monarchy. Granting them to everybody thwarted this censorship, but it has its own set of problems.
I don't think going through the body-politic is the only way though. And I don't think weakening my enemy helps me too much. The simple truth is, no matter what they do - those who believe like me are close to having the technology, infrastructure, and ability in place for unlimited and unrestricted copying.
I am much more concerned about my weakened and isolated ally who is tempted to give in to the public mob because his belief seems so out of place with everyone else. It is important to assure them that they are not alone, because the more people are willing to copy (no matter what the law is) the more our community benefits.
To your credit, there is another old saying, "those who are not against us are for us". Perhaps I shouldn't be so hard on Lessing.
However, consider for a moment the 1st ammendment - and it says "the freedom of speech shall not be adbridged" and not "you have free speech" because it is understood that this right is an inherent right that exists above government. I believe the same is true with the right to copy, and there are compelling facts to back it up - such as the non tangable nature of information, and it's high amount of interdependencies (eg all works derive from previous knowledge).
So how sould I pretend that this right doesn't exist for the comfort of those who don't want to believe it? How shall I pretend that Lessing is just swell because he only want's to acknowledge half my right instead of all of it? Is he a true liberatior, or just a pacifier to keep me and everyone else from the good we really deserve? If we half to go through all this, shouldn't we really make it count?
Being so close to having this right completely unfettered, why should I give up half of it now for the sake of his beliefs and his percieved security, it was not his ship that has brought us this far so why should we hop on board now?
Interestingly enough, the copyright industries also see him as a threat. Which is probably why things wont work out for him. For the people who really stand to gain or loose from this, neither stands to gain much from the middle ground.
Slashdot Mirror
The way I understand contract law and natrual law, is that contracts are a two way binding agreement that cannot be imposed on 3rd party's who are not part to the contract, they can also not impose on the moral nature of free will (eg contracts to follow a religion, or to be a slave, or to give up your free speech rights etc...).
Click/shrink wraps don't meet any of those criteria - especially if you consider that the right to copy is a natural law right, like the free speech, the right to create, and freedom of expression. They were a fradulent form of contract, I'm glad we got rid of them.
There are those who genuinely believe that copyrights are some inherent property right and intend to use the internet to leverage controll of information to every corner of the planet. In this scope they have proposed UTICA, the DMCA, infinite extensions, and hardware controlls whenever possible. They just don't get that the entire value of the information age encompases the unadulterated free flow of information to everywhere and everyone.
Unfortunatley, nowdays they are causing a massive economic problem as technology and paradigms pass them by. The software revenue giants Like Microsoft, are completely locked out of the greatest new paradigm in software - Linux and free software. The revenue giants like the movie and music industry are completely locked out by the greatest new paradigm in media - unhibited p2p. Maginify this across zillions of businesses and industries and long behold you have a massive economic problem that will not go away with the war on Iraq, but rather with the disapearance of copyrights. Getting rid of UTICA is a good first step, now all we need to do is get the weed at the root.
Let me put this straight, just because an institution calles something a right doesn't mean that it is. This is as true with calling copyrights a right today as it was in the 1850's when controlling slaves was called a property right. Rights are not about controll, but liberties. But copyrights are about controll, and the DMCA is about taking actions to secure that form of controll - and now people act supprised when all of a sudden their liberties start disapearing. Sorry, but this wouldn't happen if copyrights were a true right, and neither would the infinite extensions. True rights don't have expirations, phony ones or otherwise.
And the EULA is not a contract, and copyrights are not an enforcement. Since when did contract law become binging on 3rd parties who don't even agree with it? this is exactly what copyrights do. And what if someone sent you $100 in an envelope that said on the outside "by opening this I have the right to send thugs over and collect $200 in interest from you and your friends that you share it with" - this is fradulent contract law in any other context.
how about this...
in the 1850's they called slavery a property, rather than a form of controll; today they call copyrights a form of property
in the 1850 they thought that the entire purpose of the industrial revolution was to use inventions like the cotton gin to expand the size of their plantations for unlimited controll and profit. Today people think the information age is about using the internet to leverage their copyright holdings for infinite and unlimited reach.
"I have no incentive to grow cotton without slaves", "freeing slaves is common theivery", "the great wealth of the plantation system show's it's goodness", "I put effort into getting them slaves" sould alot like "artists have no incentive to create ... etc" , "copying is piracy", and "the great financial success of the movie and software industries is owed to copyrights". etc...
And how about the market crash of the 1850's when all sorts of experimental business ventures involving industrial technology crashed. (dot com bust?)
even a civil war happened next, today we have a war on terrorisim?
The problem isn't the DMCA, but that the era of copyrights is over and people, especially in the entertainment industry, can't deal with it. I think civil disobedience of copyrights whenever possible (like people are doing now) is a much more effective way. It will force change from the outside and not the inside. It will get the problem at the root.
Everyone seems to be acting like Moore's law is too fast, that over the next centruy our technology could never grow as fast as it predicts. However, consider for a moment that perhaps it's too slow, that technology can and will grow faster than it's predictions like it or not. Yes silicon has limits, but physics wise - there is no law I know of inherent in the universe that says mathematical calculations can never be calculated faster than xyz, or the rate of growth in calculation ability can never accellerate faster than abc. These constraints are defined by human limits, not physical ones.
In fact, it could be argued that Moore's law is slowing down progress because inverstors see any technology that grows faster than it predicts as too good to be true, and therefore too risky to invest in. However, from time to time when companies have been in dire straights to outdo their competitors "magical" things have happened that seem to have surpassed it for at least brief periods. Also, from what I understand, the rate of growth in optical technology *IS* faster than moores law, but people expect it to fizzle off when it reaches the abilities of silicon - I doubt it.
The last time Intel was declaring the death of Moores law was when they were under heavy attack from predictions that they couldn't match advances in RISC technology. Funny, when they finally redesigned their CPU with RISC underpinnings - these death predictions silently faded away. (at least till now) I wonder what's holding them back this time?
I think a lot of people have this same question. But speaking for myself - why work thru the system? I believe it is inherently corrupt, and our strengths lie in thchnology like encryption and decentralized p2p networks, that will do far more to create the change we need for the better and relieve us of the copyright beast riding our backs than any legal manuvers I can think of.
Other than to maybe hold back the atacking dogs another day or two while we consolidate our strengths and technologies - I just cant see a reason to ever rely on or even expect the system to change and embrace our best interests unless it is forced to from the outside.
As you indicated, UI standards are still standards. Just because something has pretty pointie and clickies does not make it easy to use. Have you ever tried sitting an old lady down and teaching her on a mac, their still confused. (even though admitedly much less so than MS windows)
Renember CDE? it was supposed to be the ultimate agreed upon X/UNIX standard, but anytime it started to go anywhere - everyone found it in their best interest to fork in seperate directions, so it never improved without constant and refreshed initiatives. It was a circus. At least with Gnome, (and GIMP) we can have confidence that it will go somewhere - we can have confidence in it's momentum, that those fusterations can be ironed out in time rather than constantly be dug up again and again.
In a way, closed software has driven a wedge between those who want to accomplish technical tasks, and those who long for simplistic beauty.
Now both of these groups would be well advised to believe in free software and strive to make it work for them, or they have destined themselves to suffer needlessly.
At least in part, because they make more money each time they re-invent the wheel, and what's in their best interest is not in the users best interest.
With free software, it is just as difficult and technical - but long term standards are allowed to emerge and be built on, learnt slow or fast, used all or just some. You can form an education and a culture arround them, you can build learning, sharing, and application into that culture so that it becomes more and more second hand as society moves onto other things, and as those who really want to can specialize and grow as fast as their able to without artifical or closed limits.
The acceptance of closed software as normal commercial behavior has caused a lot of collateral damage, and I think this is one of the symptoms.
If every company lost say, a million $ worth of patents, but in doing so gained access to billions of $ worth of patents - then that would be a net gain for everyone, wouldn't it?
Contrary to popular belief, I don't think patents are good for society. Necissity is the mother of all invention, not a patnet. It simply amazes me how stubbornly people refuse to consider that these crazy things are simply the philosophy of patnets being brought to their logical conclusion.
In fact, how do we know that this is not a trick by the RIAA only to distract us from a much more effective solution, e.g. civil disobedience of copyright law?
I really love the EFF, but we are crazy to think that this can be solved from within the system. For God sake, it is the RIAA's abuse of the system that has gotten us here to begin with. Nothing has changed. They are the ones inside the pocket, not us; they are the ones who are masters of playing the game, not us; If we play on their turf, we'll be screwed.
They are still witch hunting and fear mongering millions of teens who listen to music on the one hand, and still going full blast to toss out the 1st and 4th amendments on the other. Sorry, but these are not people who play by the rules. Yep, Their ways have made it quite clear that we only have one real option, and that is for all of us to ignore, disobey, and blow off copyrights whenever possible. These people are playing an all or npothing game, if we don't accept that and act accordingly we will only hurt ourselves.
Civil disobedience will do more to end the DMCA and the abuse of copyrights than all the other stuff combined. I really love the EFF, but they are wrong - the system will not change unless we force it to from the outside.
For real results we must do everything in our power to ignore, blow-off, disobey, disrespect, and encourage others to not accept copyright monopolies inspite of all the cheezy guilt trips and threats that they have laid on us.
This is absolutely cool.
The big value I see in this is in networking, and communications. Cell phone towers, tv stations, and internet backbones could in theory be replaced by spreading smart-dust arround town. The dust would automatically route from particle to particle to the correct phone, tv station, radio station, or internet IP address according to how you accessed it, and even automatically figure out the correct protocool. You wouldn't even be required to subscribe to an ISP or an pnone service provider, the dust would just route independently. if you needed more bandwidth in your connectivity, simply buy a bucket or two of smart dust and spread it arround, perhaps walk along the road and spread it arround like seed, or put it in a medium sized area and 50billion smart dusts will act and behave like a single transmitter.
other cool application I could see are painting your sterio on the wall. the smart dust in the paint would automatically configure itself to resonate and listen to your voice to tell it what radio station to listen to, it would tune to the station and then vibrate sounds accordingly in perfict coordination. the same logic could be used for painting a tv screen on the wall, where smart dust could be configured to emit coordinated frequencies of light rather than sound.
Seesh, if the govt fixed the supply and demand in any other market people would scream bloody murder that it's Marxisim, but when they restrict the natural supply of information - all of a sudden it's capitalisim. Bullshit, information has no natural limits on supply, since when did capitalisim tosses out the law of supply and demand?
That's like if the govt gave Ford a monopoly on making cars and then had the balls to call it free-market because they could license shares of that monopoly. What a crock, if anything, information should be less restricted than commodities not more restricted.
I totally agree with you,
first if getting rid of copyrights causes an artist to loose say 10K worth of 'ip' but gains them access to over a billion from everyone else - then that is a net gain for everyone. And that's the whole problem - information doesn't have natural limits in supply and demand like comodoties do, to treat it like is does is just stupid and maybe even fradulent. If the govt gave ford a monopoly on making cars, and then called it free market because they could license that right to other people - people would call it a fraud. Information should be less regulated than comodities, not more regulated.
second, another thing is that 'incentive' is just an outright terrible foundation for a property right. The moral and historical foundation of property derives from the fact that property has natural physical limits in supply and demand. I may not have an incentive to grow strawberries unless I can plant them in your yard. You may not have an incentive to produce cottin without owning slaves on the plantation. And it is biased because it ignores the other side, I may not have an incentive to manage networks unless I can freely copy information. This attitude that artists are gods and everyone else who has a need or desire to copy is a piece of shit is just dishonest.
which brings up the third issue. Copyrights don't help artists or creators. For every one that makes it big, 9999 artists who are just as good are living in near dirt poverty. and the overwhelming number of copyrights are held not by artists but large companies.
Also, look at all the effects related to copyright. the failures of hollywood culture, the price gouging of college text books that would be cheaper to xerox, all the anti-trust microsoft issues, the stunning and often unpredicted success of technologies like Linux, apache, if not tcp/ip and the internet itself.
Finally, things are changing fast. Information is just too easy to copy or manipulate, in order to effective controll any of it - they will half to try and controll all of it.
I advise that you read up on the civil war and all the arguments they used to support slavery as a false property right, the incentive argument, the I put money and effort into getting them argument, the you are a thief if you steal one argument, the look at the great financial success of the plantation system argument, the it's a form of property - not a form of controll argument, the it's legal and therefore moral arguent. It is amazing how history repeats itself, even down to the stock fallout of 1850, even down to the plantations trying to microregulate all the other industries and states, Just as it hit the fan then, it is hitting the fan now - watch out.
This is a move that is a desperate gamble by the RIAA to win a struggle they are losing. An act that has more to do with not knowing what else to do, than a concrete plan based in logic and well-thought out strategy.
On the contrary, I think they know exactly what they are doing. Like the rapeist who cunningly and quitely slips his victim some poison rather than chase her down and beat her senseless - they have changed their tactics but not their stripes. Infinite extensions, the DCMA, and now an attempt to which-hunt ISP's, are still going full blast. It is not over till the fat lady sings, not resignes ;) Don't believe them for a second, nothing has changed.
Even if she resigns, things will get worse - not better. Nothing has changed, they have held themselves accountable to ramming copyrights down our throat, even if it means tossing out the 1st and 4th amendment and more. Just as the plantation masters of the 1850's believed that the entire purpose of the industrial revolution was to use inventions like the cotton-gyn to expand their plantations for unlimited controll and profit, modern day copyright lords believe the internet is the leverage tool that they will use to ram copyrights down everyones throat, and controll every last bit of content in existence.
Information is simply too easy to manipulate and copy, either they will half to controll all of it, or none of it. And you had better bet that their goal is to controll all of it - they have not changed one bit. Sorry, it's not over till the fat lady sings. Copyrights, the DMCA, infinite extensions, warrentless searches and seizures, and more are still here and still kicking everybody's but. Dont buy it for a second - the fundamental facts have not changed one bit.
The moral and historical foundation of copyright derives from artists not being businessmen, and needing to be protected from scams, fraudlent deals, and meanspirited publication.
Where in the heck did this foundation come from? It certainly didn't come from the copyright act of England, nor America where the stated goal of copyrights is to bring works into the public domain. Yeah right, they sure seem to have made Hollywood and Publishers honest. PS: How come they own most the copyrights and not the creators?
We, as a civilization, have an interest in encouraging the advancement of science (patents) and art (copyright). The fact that they tend to intermingle and co-inspire just strengthens the argument.
The fact that they intermingle tends to show why they are so unworkable. 99% of what we speak, read, and know was copied from somewhere else. Also if getting rid of copyrights causes one person to loose a million worth of IP, but gains them access to trillion worth of IP - then that is a net gain.
Most of the ten thousand in "dirt poverty" are such because they suck. A small fraction are there because they haven't done anything worthy yet. An even smaller percentage is there because they haven't found the right publisher yet.
Sorry, but distribution of talent or skill doesn't even closely resemble the distribution of wealth. Infact, some would argue that there's an inverse relationship.
Were it not for the possiblity of copyright, very very few of these authors would have bothered to show anyone a copy of their book--and even less would be published or in print.
That is wrong, and the proof is all the writers and artists who wrote stuff before copyrights became common. (eg Mozart)
Kindly tell me your home address, date of birth, full name, Social Security number, credit card number, expiration date, bank number, place of employment, parent's full names, sexual orientation, religion, political affiliation, and when you're going to be out of the house for the next week and where the valuables are.
That is a great argument for using things like digital certificates instead of imposed centralized record keeping, but not a good one for copyrights, sorry. (PS copyright law does not protect database information in the US)
I said copyrights not plagiarism. Trust me, if someone wants to copy a Madonna CD, I will not accuse them of being Madonna (whose work is probably all someone elses anyhow). But if they insisted then that would be a matter of fraud, not copyrights.
Besides why did Mozart write his music, why did Linus write a UNIX kernel, why the Mona Lisa, Why the Pietta? Why the renaissance for 500 years before the 1st copyright ever existed? If the necissity of copyright protection is not the issue then please explain.
1st off, the moral and historical foundation of property derives from the fact that not everybody can use something at the same time, not from monopolies granted by a king in return for not publishing bad things about the monarchy
2nd, copyrights are a fraud in that they don't help creators that much. Often you'll hear it cried from the rooftops that the artist is king and that anybody who finds a need to copy is a self centered brat that offers nothing of value to society. Perhaps this is intentional as to distract from the fact that for every artist that makes it big, 10000 are in dirt poverty.
3rd, they are worthless as a free market property right. If I said I had no incentive to grow apples unless I could plant them in your yard, or I said that I had no incentive to grow cotton without owning slaves on the plantation - people would see it as the worthless arguments that they are, but if I say I have no incentive to bring things into the public domain without a copyright monopoly - they just take it on faith, they don't even question it. If the govt gave someone a monopoly on growing peaches and then called it free market because he could buy and sell shares of that monopoly - people would see it for what it is, a fraud. The same is true with copyrights. Since peoples activities have a natural limit in supply and demand, and not information, it is the activities that should be equated to market value and not information.
4th, information is so easy to copy and manipulate that we are quickly reaching a point where either all of it must be controlled or none of it. The copyright industries know that and so should you.
I think they will try to apply it, but we should still practice and preach civil disobedience at every chance we get anyhow. The whole reason that they HAD an expiration date to begin with was because they are NOT an inherent right. So how about if I turn it arround and say that the "right to copy" is a moral right that exists above government like freedom of the press, religion, and speech.
It's time to get rid of copyright monopolies once and for all, and we have the technology to do it. People who create are NOT gods and people who copy are NOT self centered SOB's that will never make a contribution to society, and most people do both. As if copyrights ever benefited more than 1 out of 10,000 artists anyhow. As if the out of touch Disney culture and Hollywood shouldn't have clued us in a long time ago. As if people who copy are akin to pirates who board ships and kill people. As if copyrights ever had a moral equivalence to physical property. This is just sooo much crap - it's all or nothing now.
- that the DMCA and laws like it are simply logical progression of copyrights. You can't tell people that they have certain types of rights and never expect them to never try and secure those rights. To expect so would be hypocritical and is just as wrong as the DMCA is. Information is so easy to copy and manipulate that copyrights are simply not going to be workable unless all information is controlled or none of it. It simply amazes me to hear people cry bloody murder about the DMCA, but never even consider the root of the problem.
All I ever get in reply is this crazy propaganda about the poor starving artist and how they are they are so valuable and holy while anybody elese in society who may have the need to copy things is a worthless piece of cr*p incapable of adding any value to society. Perhaps this is just to distract from the fact that for every artist that makes it, there are 10,000 living in dirt poverty who copyrights haven't helped one darn bit. Perhaps it's to keep people from noticing how bad copyrights really are.
While this culture certainly seems more rational about copyrights than ours is, the simple truth is you can't tell people that they have "rights" and then never expect them to effectively secure them, that is just as wrong as the copyright lords are. The DMCA and other laws like it are just that, people trying to secure rights that we have told them that they have, and are the main reason copyrights are so evil. The effects of copyrights are like a vine that will never stop growing until we cut it off at the root. Information is so easy to copy and manipulate that in the long run there can be no middle ground. Either all information will be controlled or none of it.
I don't exactly know what you mean by objective reality. But, when I make my arguments I typically try to assume that existence is rational, it is non deterministic (eg. people have free choice), and it is inherently good (eg. people are not inherently evil by nature) I don't think I'm assuming anything else, but perhaps may miss things because I am finite.
Interesrtingly enough many of the founding fathers were aware of copyright's potential problems, that's probably why they have an expiration date to begin with. It used to be that copyrights were granted by the King of England to publishers in return for not saying bad things about the monarchy. Granting them to everybody thwarted this censorship, but it has its own set of problems.
I don't think going through the body-politic is the only way though. And I don't think weakening my enemy helps me too much. The simple truth is, no matter what they do - those who believe like me are close to having the technology, infrastructure, and ability in place for unlimited and unrestricted copying.
I am much more concerned about my weakened and isolated ally who is tempted to give in to the public mob because his belief seems so out of place with everyone else. It is important to assure them that they are not alone, because the more people are willing to copy (no matter what the law is) the more our community benefits.
To your credit, there is another old saying, "those who are not against us are for us". Perhaps I shouldn't be so hard on Lessing.
However, consider for a moment the 1st ammendment - and it says "the freedom of speech shall not be adbridged" and not "you have free speech" because it is understood that this right is an inherent right that exists above government. I believe the same is true with the right to copy, and there are compelling facts to back it up - such as the non tangable nature of information, and it's high amount of interdependencies (eg all works derive from previous knowledge).
So how sould I pretend that this right doesn't exist for the comfort of those who don't want to believe it? How shall I pretend that Lessing is just swell because he only want's to acknowledge half my right instead of all of it? Is he a true liberatior, or just a pacifier to keep me and everyone else from the good we really deserve?
If we half to go through all this, shouldn't we really make it count?
Being so close to having this right completely unfettered, why should I give up half of it now for the sake of his beliefs and his percieved security, it was not his ship that has brought us this far so why should we hop on board now?
Interestingly enough, the copyright industries also see him as a threat. Which is probably why things wont work out for him. For the people who really stand to gain or loose from this, neither stands to gain much from the middle ground.