Right - that's where DRM mechanisms like that for Windows Media or Helix DRM come in. The file, distributed by a torrent, has DRM built-in. We can then offer an exceedingly cheap rental price (on the order of an iTunes download or less).
These payment systems exist. Or at least the infrastructure is there, and the sites are coming online. The issue is that you probably haven't run across much of the content, yet.
I know because for the past couple of years I've been working on distribution of a documentary about the culture of hardcore online PC gamers titled "Fraglimit Hit" (old trailer here).
I wasted the better part of this time trying to sell it through film festivals, online movie download sites, etc. For various reasons these channels just weren't a good fit. Then I started developing my own iTunes-like site.
Thankfully, I came across a P2P service that will handle payments for films downloaded by torrents. So I for one will miss the fact that these sites would help distribute my torrent, when it comes available later this month. Yeah, the sites enable unlawful copying, but my plan was to have these sites help distribution of my film.
Some of the comments above seem to me to be on point. The folks you really want tend to be pretty busy working or trying to take advantage of the time they have off.
And don't forget the "executive message board" - the golf course.
Ok - for those of you who want a little help - clip and paste this into an email and edit it to suit your tastes. I sent mine a short time ago.
_________
I am writing to register my objection to the proposed Microsoft settlement. I do not believe the current proposal serves the interests of promoting competition or remedying the impact on the Amercian consumer.
Specifically, I believe the current proposal will stifle competition by giving Microsoft a leg-up on competitors under the guise of a settlement. Permitting Microsoft to settle the matter by delivering Microsoft products to school systems, which traditionally tend to favor other vendors (e.g., Apple), would be tantamount to state-sponsorship of the extension of Mcirosoft's monopoly.
Instead, Microsoft should be required to make payment in cash, and then permit the school systems to direct the use of these funds in the (hopefully technical) areas of its choosing.
Futhermore, I believe the amount of the settlement is grossly inadequate to remove the incentive for Microsoft to continue its practices. I believe Microsoft will treat the settlement as a "cost of doing business", much as any other "administrative overhead".
Finally, I believe the settlement should include requirements for Microsoft to provide open access to interfaces between its products, and to provide an unbundled version of Windows (no Internet Explorer, no Windows Media Player, etc.). These actions are needed to afford competitive products, including open source alternatives, with an environment in which they can compete on a level playing field with a competitor which controls the incumbent desktop operating system technology. Without true, timely and open access to interoperability information, the barriers of entry for alternative commercial and open source products will be too high to overcome the leverage held through its desktop operating system monopoly. To truly avoid a recurrence of past practices, an oversight committee of some sort is truly needed.
Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.
>If Slade argues that he had no knowledge of the license, then he is limited by standard copyright >regulations. Modifying the posted source and freely distributing the compiled binaries is a violation of >copyright law. There is no implied 'license' other than the rights granted under copyright law, such as fair >use. Slade made a derivative work from JC's copyrighted work and he is prohibited by law from >distributing that work. JC decided to allow such modifications to occur by distributing his work under >the GPL. The only right Slade has to distribute his modified binary is granted by the GPL. If he doesn't >conform to the GPL, then he should quit distributing someone else's copyrighted work.
Copyright law just defines the scope of an author's rights over the copyrighted material. An author can grant a license to his copyrighted work, and that license can be either written, or it can be implied from the circumstances. (E.g., the author posts the code on a web site under circumstances which make it apparent the code is intended to be downloaded and used but does not specify license terms.) Copyright law does not prohibit an implied licenses; in fact, copyright law says very little about licensing. That's left to the more general laws of contracts.
What Slade would be arguing in that scenario is that he was unaware of any terms and thought that Carmack was just making the code available under a broad implied license. I'll be the first to say that Carmack could probably establish that Slade either knew or should have known that the code was subject to the GPL license. The point I was trying to make is that by choosing to package the code in a manner which does not require acceptance of the license before accessing the code, Carmack has opened himself up to having to establish acceptance of the license. If he can't establish that Slade knew or should have known about the GPL license, he won't be able to enforce the GPL against Slade. This will be one more thing Carmack will have to prove if he has to bring some sort of enforcement action.
The point to be taken here is a broader one - commercial companies create those install routines for their products for a reason - to help establish the enforceability of their licenses. Does the open source community feel that their code is less valuable and less deserving of equivalent packaging? Just a thought.
>Not unless Slate found a way to delete the header >of every source and header file, along with deliberately >not read the file called readme.txt after >uncompressing the archive.
There is a way - extract/unzip/untar the files, compile them, get rid of the original source files, reverse compile the binaries, and use the files that result. Sounds improbable, but that's one way of doing it.
Fixed my formatting - sorry about the first post.;^)
I disagree in part. I agree that Carmack would still have hold a copyright over the code, but the manner in which he packaged the code would affect whether the GPL or some other license applies to the code.
To enforce the GPL, Carmack will have to demonstrate that Slade assented to the terms of the GPL. While Carmack will surely argue that Slade *must* have seen the license embedded in the source files, he will not be able to argue that Slade could not have accessed the code without accepting the license.
This is significant because if Carmack cannot establish that Slade had knowledge of the license, then I think Slade's use of the code would be subject to an implied license, not the GPL. If I were Slade, I would argue that, as a matter of happenstance, I accessed the code, compiled it without looking at the original source files, then reverse compiled it and worked with the files that resulted. Sure, everyone on this board would hoot at that kind of an assertion, but Carmack would have the burden to prove that Slade did not do that.
I'll be the first to tell you that Carmack will probably be able to get past this particular hurdle. I think Carmack's biggest obstacle would really be dealing with the ambiguities of the GPL. My real point here is that Linux community takes for granted that the GPL will apply to the software, when I don't think that's a sure thing. Probably provable in many cases, but the open soruce community isn't doing itself any favors on that front given the way it distributes code.
I've read the posts on this thread with more than a little interest. The posts really run the gamut. From civil libertarians to GPL zealots to warez d00ds, this topic has 'em all covered. Since I am none of the above, I thought I'd contribute my own $.02, for once. To the extent he holds the copyright to code, John Carmack is within his rights to release that code under whatever terms he chooses, within some limits. (For example, he can't require us to commit criminal acts in the license. I suppose it may be illegal in some states to dump milk/cherry slurpees on your head, but I can't say I know that for sure.) To me, the interesting issues here are those that relate to contract formation, and interpretation of the GPL. The enforceability of most software click wrap licenses is generally predicated on the act of clicking a button (usually required to install commercial software which uses that type of license) to seal the user's acceptance of the license and form the contract. The act of clicking the button, which is required to install the software in the first place, is the evidence needed to establish that the user accepted the license. It's quite common in the Linux community, however, to distribute software in a manner which does not require the user to read anything, much less a license, to install and use it. I wonder how John packaged the Quake source code and how that would affect the enforceability of the license. I wonder if the package required Slade to accept a license before accessing the code. The other aspect of this that really interests me is interpretation of the GPL to the facts. In some of the posts, I've seen some indications that Slade believes he is distributing (in some cases anyway) patches to GPL'd code, rather than binaries which include GPL'd code. I can't say that I know the true facts about what Slade did, but the GPL doesn't purport to apply unless the binaries you distribute are a derivative work of GPL'd code. Another point to keep in mind is that the GPL is notoriously ambiguous. I've been told that the license was drafted that way to prevent people from easily finding loopholes in the license. While the intentions behind the drafting the license may have been fundamentally good, I don't think the ambiguities in the GPL serves the best interests of the open source community. One of the fundamental tenants of contract law is that "ambiguity is resolved against the drafter". To the extent Slade can establish a reasonable interpretation of the GPL which would permit his activities, Carmack may find himself in an uphill battle. If that doesn't unsettle you, consider this: unless both Carmack and Slade waive their right to a jury trial, factual matters (such as whether Slade's code include Carmack's code) will be decided by a "jury of their peers". Mind you, that "peers" includes the general population. Imagine 12 Joes and Janes from the street trying to make heads or tails of this, with the fate of the GPL in their hands. Now, before I get/.'d, bear in mind that I'm not trying to take sides here. For me this is more of an intellectual exercise than anything else. I'll be kind of curious to see what develops over the coming weeks.
Slashdot Mirror
Right - that's where DRM mechanisms like that for Windows Media or Helix DRM come in. The file, distributed by a torrent, has DRM built-in. We can then offer an exceedingly cheap rental price (on the order of an iTunes download or less).
These payment systems exist. Or at least the infrastructure is there, and the sites are coming online. The issue is that you probably haven't run across much of the content, yet.
I know because for the past couple of years I've been working on distribution of a documentary about the culture of hardcore online PC gamers titled "Fraglimit Hit" (old trailer here).
I wasted the better part of this time trying to sell it through film festivals, online movie download sites, etc. For various reasons these channels just weren't a good fit. Then I started developing my own iTunes-like site.
Thankfully, I came across a P2P service that will handle payments for films downloaded by torrents. So I for one will miss the fact that these sites would help distribute my torrent, when it comes available later this month. Yeah, the sites enable unlawful copying, but my plan was to have these sites help distribution of my film.
An email address would probably help.
ghost@wriREMOVECAPTEXTghtfam.com.
Some of the comments above seem to me to be on point. The folks you really want tend to be pretty busy working or trying to take advantage of the time they have off.
And don't forget the "executive message board" - the golf course.
Anyway, if you happen to see this, email me.
Ok - for those of you who want a little help - clip and paste this into an email and edit it to suit your tastes. I sent mine a short time ago.
_________
I am writing to register my objection to the proposed Microsoft settlement. I do not believe the current proposal serves the interests of promoting competition or remedying the impact on the Amercian consumer.
Specifically, I believe the current proposal will stifle competition by giving Microsoft a leg-up on competitors under the guise of a settlement. Permitting Microsoft to settle the matter by delivering Microsoft products to school systems, which traditionally tend to favor other vendors (e.g., Apple), would be tantamount to state-sponsorship of the extension of Mcirosoft's monopoly.
Instead, Microsoft should be required to make payment in cash, and then permit the school systems to direct the use of these funds in the (hopefully technical) areas of its choosing.
Futhermore, I believe the amount of the settlement is grossly inadequate to remove the incentive for Microsoft to continue its practices. I believe Microsoft will treat the settlement as a "cost of doing business", much as any other "administrative overhead".
Finally, I believe the settlement should include requirements for Microsoft to provide open access to interfaces between its products, and to provide an unbundled version of Windows (no Internet Explorer, no Windows Media Player, etc.). These actions are needed to afford competitive products, including open source alternatives, with an environment in which they can compete on a level playing field with a competitor which controls the incumbent desktop operating system technology. Without true, timely and open access to interoperability information, the barriers of entry for alternative commercial and open source products will be too high to overcome the leverage held through its desktop operating system monopoly. To truly avoid a recurrence of past practices, an oversight committee of some sort is truly needed.
Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely
>If Slade argues that he had no knowledge of the license, then he is limited by standard copyright
>regulations. Modifying the posted source and freely distributing the compiled binaries is a violation of
>copyright law. There is no implied 'license' other than the rights granted under copyright law, such as fair
>use. Slade made a derivative work from JC's copyrighted work and he is prohibited by law from
>distributing that work. JC decided to allow such modifications to occur by distributing his work under
>the GPL. The only right Slade has to distribute his modified binary is granted by the GPL. If he doesn't
>conform to the GPL, then he should quit distributing someone else's copyrighted work.
Copyright law just defines the scope of an author's rights over the copyrighted material. An author can grant a license to his copyrighted work, and that license can be either written, or it can be implied from the circumstances. (E.g., the author posts the code on a web site under circumstances which make it apparent the code is intended to be downloaded and used but does not specify license terms.) Copyright law does not prohibit an implied licenses; in fact, copyright law says very little about licensing. That's left to the more general laws of contracts.
What Slade would be arguing in that scenario is that he was unaware of any terms and thought that Carmack was just making the code available under a broad implied license. I'll be the first to say that Carmack could probably establish that Slade either knew or should have known that the code was subject to the GPL license. The point I was trying to make is that by choosing to package the code in a manner which does not require acceptance of the license before accessing the code, Carmack has opened himself up to having to establish acceptance of the license. If he can't establish that Slade knew or should have known about the GPL license, he won't be able to enforce the GPL against Slade. This will be one more thing Carmack will have to prove if he has to bring some sort of enforcement action.
The point to be taken here is a broader one - commercial companies create those install routines for their products for a reason - to help establish the enforceability of their licenses. Does the open source community feel that their code is less valuable and less deserving of equivalent packaging? Just a thought.
Yeah, sorry about the formatting. ;^)
>Not unless Slate found a way to delete the header
>of every source and header file, along with deliberately
>not read the file called readme.txt after
>uncompressing the archive.
There is a way - extract/unzip/untar the files, compile them, get rid of the original source files, reverse compile the binaries, and use the files that result. Sounds improbable, but that's one way of doing it.
Fixed my formatting - sorry about the first post. ;^)
I disagree in part. I agree that Carmack would still have hold a copyright over the code, but the manner in which he packaged the code would affect whether the GPL or some other license applies to the code.
To enforce the GPL, Carmack will have to demonstrate that Slade assented to the terms of the GPL. While Carmack will surely argue that Slade *must* have seen the license embedded in the source files, he will not be able to argue that Slade could not have accessed the code without accepting the license.
This is significant because if Carmack cannot establish that Slade had knowledge of the license, then I think Slade's use of the code would be subject to an implied license, not the GPL. If I were Slade, I would argue that, as a matter of happenstance, I accessed the code, compiled it without looking at the original source files, then reverse compiled it and worked with the files that resulted. Sure, everyone on this board would hoot at that kind of an assertion, but Carmack would have the burden to prove that Slade did not do that.
I'll be the first to tell you that Carmack will probably be able to get past this particular hurdle. I think Carmack's biggest obstacle would really be dealing with the ambiguities of the GPL. My real point here is that Linux community takes for granted that the GPL will apply to the software, when I don't think that's a sure thing. Probably provable in many cases, but the open soruce community isn't doing itself any favors on that front given the way it distributes code.
I've read the posts on this thread with more than a little interest. The posts really run the gamut. From civil libertarians to GPL zealots to warez d00ds, this topic has 'em all covered. Since I am none of the above, I thought I'd contribute my own $.02, for once. To the extent he holds the copyright to code, John Carmack is within his rights to release that code under whatever terms he chooses, within some limits. (For example, he can't require us to commit criminal acts in the license. I suppose it may be illegal in some states to dump milk/cherry slurpees on your head, but I can't say I know that for sure.) To me, the interesting issues here are those that relate to contract formation, and interpretation of the GPL. The enforceability of most software click wrap licenses is generally predicated on the act of clicking a button (usually required to install commercial software which uses that type of license) to seal the user's acceptance of the license and form the contract. The act of clicking the button, which is required to install the software in the first place, is the evidence needed to establish that the user accepted the license. It's quite common in the Linux community, however, to distribute software in a manner which does not require the user to read anything, much less a license, to install and use it. I wonder how John packaged the Quake source code and how that would affect the enforceability of the license. I wonder if the package required Slade to accept a license before accessing the code. The other aspect of this that really interests me is interpretation of the GPL to the facts. In some of the posts, I've seen some indications that Slade believes he is distributing (in some cases anyway) patches to GPL'd code, rather than binaries which include GPL'd code. I can't say that I know the true facts about what Slade did, but the GPL doesn't purport to apply unless the binaries you distribute are a derivative work of GPL'd code. Another point to keep in mind is that the GPL is notoriously ambiguous. I've been told that the license was drafted that way to prevent people from easily finding loopholes in the license. While the intentions behind the drafting the license may have been fundamentally good, I don't think the ambiguities in the GPL serves the best interests of the open source community. One of the fundamental tenants of contract law is that "ambiguity is resolved against the drafter". To the extent Slade can establish a reasonable interpretation of the GPL which would permit his activities, Carmack may find himself in an uphill battle. If that doesn't unsettle you, consider this: unless both Carmack and Slade waive their right to a jury trial, factual matters (such as whether Slade's code include Carmack's code) will be decided by a "jury of their peers". Mind you, that "peers" includes the general population. Imagine 12 Joes and Janes from the street trying to make heads or tails of this, with the fate of the GPL in their hands. Now, before I get /.'d, bear in mind that I'm not trying to take sides here. For me this is more of an intellectual exercise than anything else. I'll be kind of curious to see what develops over the coming weeks.