It's still a bad analogy. Everyone doesn't hate the Yankees. Everyone SHOULD hate the Yankees, yet the the Yankees are still the most popular team in MLB.
It will not work because of the fundamental flaw at the heart of the system: in order for the purchaser to view the content it has to be unlocked. Once it is unlocked then someone, somewhere, will figure out a way to make a copy of the unlocked version. And once an unlocked version leaks onto the network it will be uncontrollable.
The other day, when Slashdot did a story on the Wiki L. Lessig was using to create a new version of his book... I read through his section on Trusted Computing and all I could think about is precisely the problem described above. There is no way to allow users to listen to/read/watch content that prevents that user from generating a copy of it. Have any of the trusted computing advocates addessed this issue? Is there some party line from the Lessig camp that explains how such a system could possibly protect digital content?
If there's an argument to be made, I'm ready to hear it. Otherwise... all this talk about the New Age of Copyright just seems kinda silly.
Seems to me that this guy is proving a point - one that the Wiki-zealots simply don't want to hear. Inaccurate information doesn't merely survive in the Wikipedia, it thrives.
I never said Wikipedia "does not work" - whatever that means. I said Wikipedia's entries are - as a whole - not as reliable as published entries that have been subjected to a professional, organized process of fact-checking. I think this statement holds up pretty well on its own, unless one intends to argue that a professional, organized system of fact checking is actually inferior to a disorganized, non-professional system; a system whereby an inaccurate entry gets corrected if and only if:
A) Someone happens to stumble upon the inaccurate entry. B) That person happens to know that the entry is not accurate. C) That person has the knowledge and wherewithal to correct the entry. D) That person is willing to keep on checking this corrected entry over and over again to make sure that someone else hasn't come along to introduce new inaccuracies or to revert it back to the old, inaccurate entry... which is par for the course on Wikipedia.
So you will excuse me for not bothering to write a journal article to demonstrate a point that reasonable people (ie. not Wikipedia zealots) would tend to find self-evident.
You say this, of course, because you know damn well that no one in this discussion is capable of fact checking thousands of Wikipedia articles and thousands of published encyclopedia articles within the next 12 hours to create the "data" that you demand. So, adolescent sophistry aside, I think it is quite reasonable to argue that an organized, professional system of fack-checking does, in reality, make published encyclopedias considerably more reliable than articles that are not subjected to any organized process of fact checking.
Maybe I'm just cynical (all right, I'm DEFINATELY cynical), but I think this is less about the RIAA "doing the dight thing" and more about them choosing their battles.
Right now, the music industry battling on a number of different fronts: The RIAA is going after Napster, while the major record labels are once again fighting price-fixing charges. Because of all this, the Work-for-Hire clause that they quietly slipped into a piece of Satellite legislation got the attention of the media.
By backing off on this issue for the moment, they can prevent the public hearings that congress had planned which basically would have featured lots of musicians speaking out against the RIAA, right when a number of other issues were at stake. (unlike Napster, I cannot imagine ANY musician speaking out in support of the work-for-hire clause - not even mean old Lars).
However, when the Napster thing has died down and the media has gotten bored with these sorts of issues... don't be supprised if the RIAA once again gets congress to slip work-for-hire into some obscure legislation.
It seems like if they allow people to add HD space at their own discretion, this stands as yet another selling point for this product. Considering this, I wonder...
If TIVO, and products like it, become more and more popular, will the very nature of advertising on television change as a result?
My friend owns one of those TIVO thingies, and it seems like he never watches any commercials at all... he just pre-records all his favorate shows, and then zips thru the ads with the 30 second-skip button. If it gets to the point where most viewers are using a service that allows them to do this, how will the networks change the format of ads in order to compensate? Will they place them during the shows themselves, or in the form of product placement?
Or will they simply revert to subliminal mind control techniques?:)
Is this really the "Tech Culture's" Fault?
on
Selfish Society
·
· Score: 2
The very first sentence of this piece begins with the phrase: "The tech culture is becoming a elitist society with no coherent political values". It is right here that Katz's argument begins to fall apart for me.
First of all, is this suggesting that there was a point in time in which the tech culture did have a set of distinct political values, but have since disgarded them? If this is case, I sure as heck don't remember it.
Also, I'm not certain that the solution to the very real problems that Katz refers to can or should be solved by the "tech culture." Many of the problems of selfishness, political ignorance, apathy, and the like are elements of society at large, and certainly not particular to folks that work with computers. What is the point of singling out the computer culture, here? Isn't it a little arrogant to say to the Slashdot crowd "we should no better." Why should we be expected to know better than anyone, else? Doesn't this sort of attitude stink of the sort of elitism you were criticizing?
I would love to see the Tech Culture become politically conscious and active, just as I would love to see everyone else in the country do the same. I think, however, that when you expect a group as large and diverse as the "Tech Culture" come together with a single set of coherent political values, you may be asking a bit too much.
According to a press release I read on the Sirius site a while back, one of the channels on their system will be "Sci-Fi Radio," produced by USA Networks Interactive (the people who bring you the Sci-Fi cable TV channel). I'm not sure what the programming is gonna be like. I actually sent those folks a demo CD of my bad ass radio program that would have been PERFECT for their channel... but I have heard nothing from them. OK enough bitterness from me...
I need something to keep me entertained when I'm on the toilet!
Seriously, tho, if I buy software that only comes with a pdf manual, the first thing I am going to do is print it out so that I have a hard copy to work with. And if I'm paying quite a lot for software, I think that it's not too much to ask for the software company to spring for a solidly bound manual.
I remember that awhile ago, the MIT media lab was working on wearable computers that drew power from the electric field that the human body generates. Does anyone know if the magnetic chips that the article mentions would be capable of running similarly?
Slashdot Mirror
How would this work, exactly?
"Wow Carol... that new rouge really looks nice on you!"
"Thanks for noticing, Sue - but it only looks nice when the temperature is below 75 degrees... any warmer than that and I'd look like a total whore!"
It's still a bad analogy. Everyone doesn't hate the Yankees. Everyone SHOULD hate the Yankees, yet the the Yankees are still the most popular team in MLB.
I think the key passage from the article is:
It will not work because of the fundamental flaw at the heart of the system: in order for the purchaser to view the content it has to be unlocked. Once it is unlocked then someone, somewhere, will figure out a way to make a copy of the unlocked version. And once an unlocked version leaks onto the network it will be uncontrollable.
The other day, when Slashdot did a story on the Wiki L. Lessig was using to create a new version of his book... I read through his section on Trusted Computing and all I could think about is precisely the problem described above. There is no way to allow users to listen to/read/watch content that prevents that user from generating a copy of it. Have any of the trusted computing advocates addessed this issue? Is there some party line from the Lessig camp that explains how such a system could possibly protect digital content?
If there's an argument to be made, I'm ready to hear it. Otherwise... all this talk about the New Age of Copyright just seems kinda silly.
Seems to me that this guy is proving a point - one that the Wiki-zealots simply don't want to hear. Inaccurate information doesn't merely survive in the Wikipedia, it thrives.
I never said Wikipedia "does not work" - whatever that means. I said Wikipedia's entries are - as a whole - not as reliable as published entries that have been subjected to a professional, organized process of fact-checking. I think this statement holds up pretty well on its own, unless one intends to argue that a professional, organized system of fact checking is actually inferior to a disorganized, non-professional system; a system whereby an inaccurate entry gets corrected if and only if:
A) Someone happens to stumble upon the inaccurate entry.
B) That person happens to know that the entry is not accurate.
C) That person has the knowledge and wherewithal to correct the entry.
D) That person is willing to keep on checking this corrected entry over and over again to make sure that someone else hasn't come along to introduce new inaccuracies or to revert it back to the old, inaccurate entry... which is par for the course on Wikipedia.
So you will excuse me for not bothering to write a journal article to demonstrate a point that reasonable people (ie. not Wikipedia zealots) would tend to find self-evident.
You say this, of course, because you know damn well that no one in this discussion is capable of fact checking thousands of Wikipedia articles and thousands of published encyclopedia articles within the next 12 hours to create the "data" that you demand. So, adolescent sophistry aside, I think it is quite reasonable to argue that an organized, professional system of fack-checking does, in reality, make published encyclopedias considerably more reliable than articles that are not subjected to any organized process of fact checking.
Sweet Briar College is not co-ed. Only girls attend. Furthermore, Mr. Mahler is a recently married man.
Maybe I'm just cynical (all right, I'm DEFINATELY cynical), but I think this is less about the RIAA "doing the dight thing" and more about them choosing their battles.
Right now, the music industry battling on a number of different fronts: The RIAA is going after Napster, while the major record labels are once again fighting price-fixing charges. Because of all this, the Work-for-Hire clause that they quietly slipped into a piece of Satellite legislation got the attention of the media.
By backing off on this issue for the moment, they can prevent the public hearings that congress had planned which basically would have featured lots of musicians speaking out against the RIAA, right when a number of other issues were at stake. (unlike Napster, I cannot imagine ANY musician speaking out in support of the work-for-hire clause - not even mean old Lars).
However, when the Napster thing has died down and the media has gotten bored with these sorts of issues... don't be supprised if the RIAA once again gets congress to slip work-for-hire into some obscure legislation.
Yes, but only the REALLY REALLY sedentary people exploded. Wait a mintute... at this point, that could apply to half the american population.
I just heard that a malignant carbon rod has actually made it to Gore's short list of VP candidates. I guess Gore really IS going after the geek vote.
Gore/Rod 2000, baby!
It seems like if they allow people to add HD space at their own discretion, this stands as yet another selling point for this product. Considering this, I wonder...
:)
If TIVO, and products like it, become more and more popular, will the very nature of advertising on television change as a result?
My friend owns one of those TIVO thingies, and it seems like he never watches any commercials at all... he just pre-records all his favorate shows, and then zips thru the ads with the 30 second-skip button. If it gets to the point where most viewers are using a service that allows them to do this, how will the networks change the format of ads in order to compensate? Will they place them during the shows themselves, or in the form of product placement?
Or will they simply revert to subliminal mind control techniques?
The very first sentence of this piece begins with the phrase: "The tech culture is becoming a elitist society with no coherent political values". It is right here that Katz's argument begins to fall apart for me.
First of all, is this suggesting that there was a point in time in which the tech culture did have a set of distinct political values, but have since disgarded them? If this is case, I sure as heck don't remember it.
Also, I'm not certain that the solution to the very real problems that Katz refers to can or should be solved by the "tech culture." Many of the problems of selfishness, political ignorance, apathy, and the like are elements of society at large, and certainly not particular to folks that work with computers. What is the point of singling out the computer culture, here? Isn't it a little arrogant to say to the Slashdot crowd "we should no better." Why should we be expected to know better than anyone, else? Doesn't this sort of attitude stink of the sort of elitism you were criticizing?
I would love to see the Tech Culture become politically conscious and active, just as I would love to see everyone else in the country do the same. I think, however, that when you expect a group as large and diverse as the "Tech Culture" come together with a single set of coherent political values, you may be asking a bit too much.
According to a press release I read on the Sirius site a while back, one of the channels on their system will be "Sci-Fi Radio," produced by USA Networks Interactive (the people who bring you the Sci-Fi cable TV channel). I'm not sure what the programming is gonna be like. I actually sent those folks a demo CD of my bad ass radio program that would have been PERFECT for their channel... but I have heard nothing from them. OK enough bitterness from me...
Yes, it's true - super-intelligent mice threaten the very existence of our species. Check out this report for yourself:
http://www.circling.org/articles/sm artmice.html
I need something to keep me entertained when I'm on the toilet!
Seriously, tho, if I buy software that only comes with a pdf manual, the first thing I am going to do is print it out so that I have a hard copy to work with. And if I'm paying quite a lot for software, I think that it's not too much to ask for the software company to spring for a solidly bound manual.
I remember that awhile ago, the MIT media lab was working on wearable computers that drew power from the electric field that the human body generates. Does anyone know if the magnetic chips that the article mentions would be capable of running similarly?