Shouldexist founders are working to make the site function like that - encouraging people to flesh out ideas so that they constitute prior art in the eyes of the law (ie you need to say how to do it (think of as many ways as possible) not just that it should be done.
Shouldexist currently runs scoop but there are plans in the works to organise it something more like everything2 - linking up ideas as they connect.
Hell Yes - the only Intellectual property that I support would be:
1. a right, which can only belong to the author, over the first release of their work (not over subsequent copying &c) and to stop others using their creation for profit.
2. A short time-limited non-transferable patent where the application is made public for a real search for prior art (not half an hour in the patent office). A development period of, say, 12 months and then a limited revenue period to re-coup costs and, say, 20% profit.
Suddenly the whole world begins to resemble what one person, or one small group of people, decided it should resemble.
Scary sure... but you've got the wrong moment.
That happens when, if you believe in copyright, you download copyrighted music and use it, not when the tool to make it possible is created.
And it sure is changed if you click on over to fairmusic.com and pay what you think its worth - directly to the artist.
Are you asking for a vote on every invention or something?
File sharing antagonises the control element of copyright - it needn't antagonise copyrights other function - getting the artist rewarded.
Cheers
James
Wouldn't one use for a distributed operating system be in artificial intelligence - especially for neural nets?
Aggregating the processor cycles and memory to facilitate massively parrallel processing - giving access to the level of computation required for artificial intelligence?
I would have liked to have seen conduct restrictions that force MS to implement standards (for example give some legal force to the W3C standards by citing them in this case)
Regardless of the breakup MS will still carry on with its:
[MS-html] nonsense [/ms-html]
[ms-xml] Complete nonsense [/ms-xml]
Still - better than no action at all.
Who knows where we'll be in one and a half years anyway?
Did I miss the irony here? - Not sure which planet you are living on.
Peering as you describe it, 'free', died with the commericalization of the net about 10 years ago.
Recently there has been a real ruckus in international telecom and internet development policy circles over the 'peering' arrangements for trans-pacific traffic.
Basically the large US and Canadian carriers charge ISPs in places like Australia and Korea and Latin America for access to their network (to get to the bulk of content in the US) - these 'Tier One ISPs charge the smaller ones for traffic originated on their networks (sent traffic) and to get traffic (receieved traffic).
In a funny version of peering, however the Tier One ISPs don't pay the smaller ISPs for the traffic sent over their networks (ie from the US) to the smaller networks customers.
In this way the relationships are very unequal. Some say this is the free market at work - the big networks have content that the smaller ones want therefore they should pay. Others say that this will result in a very hierarchial network structure dominated by north american network firms.
Perhaps the solution is for ISPs to pay those upstream for any traffic they send out? (How would this affect Gnutella and FreeNet?)
Anyway - this dispute is being played out in the APEC telecommunications forum which, under heavy US and Canadian pressure deferred attempts at regulating these relationships for another two years. They call it International Charging Arrangements for Interent Services (ICAIS).
Now, friend, you are missing the point of ratings in this context.
Think of this more in the context of radio play ratings - the more your song is played the more of the pool of royalties paid by the broadcasters (gained from advertising or another source) that is paid to you.
Unfortunately selling bottles (CDs) instead of the wine (songs) is on the way out.
By all means let's reward the artists - but on the basis of play and popularity.
IMHO, streaming customized radio with short ads included will be a viable model - that way you don't need to store the music, the artists get paid (by the advertisers) and we can all stop worrying about IP piracy!
James Howison
why all the fear... distributed file sharing is bad for business, but business has never been good for art.
We want the free flow of ideas only encumbered in such a way as to maximumally encourage the creation of new ideas.
The discussion has so far assumed that there is, or could be, only one motivating factor - money.
One of the reasons that artists are not screaming as loudly as the record companies is that there work is being heard and appreciated - even if it is not paid for. Art, for me, is about communication - the joy is having others listen and getting your message out.
For some artists that is the goal - and IMHO art unemcumbered by commerce is likely to produce greater expressions of culture and better art. This motivational factor is greatly increased by zero-cost distribution and the free-flow of cultural products.
For others - the goal is the cash. Well I say the onus lies with them to try to wring out payment. Why should society be forced to forgo zero-cost reproduction just to help them. or to put it more succintly - why should society brand 'kids' (or anyone) a criminal just so that that 'cash artists' can get paid.
As a first step we should create a legal system around information production which allows the authors (person or group of persons) to earn money from its distribution (in whatever way they can make work).
The difference is that we should disallow third parties from earning money from others contributions. the author should not be able to 'sell' the rights to others, and should through legal suit recover any money made on the back of their creativity by others. http://jhowison.tripod.com
Slashdot Mirror
Take your idea on over to shouldexist.org - they are specifically working on getting good ideas in a format to be used as prior art.
Shouldexist founders are working to make the site function like that - encouraging people to flesh out ideas so that they constitute prior art in the eyes of the law (ie you need to say how to do it (think of as many ways as possible) not just that it should be done.
Shouldexist currently runs scoop but there are plans in the works to organise it something more like everything2 - linking up ideas as they connect.
I try and get eric from shouldexist to post.
The 'popularity' system of distributed caching should take care of that.
The real goods should be more popular than the spam (if not then the advertisement must be entertaining...)
Thus it will be cached more and eventually the spam will drop off the network.
Course some bastard will figure out a way - it just won't be easy and it will prompt a whole enw round of innovation and development.
1. a right, which can only belong to the author, over the first release of their work (not over subsequent copying &c) and to stop others using their creation for profit.
Can't make money? Bollucks. See the Street Performer Protocol and Stephen King making it happen
2. A short time-limited non-transferable patent where the application is made public for a real search for prior art (not half an hour in the patent office). A development period of, say, 12 months and then a limited revenue period to re-coup costs and, say, 20% profit.
After that it's public domain.
Cheers
James
I meant fairtunes.com
Suddenly the whole world begins to resemble what one person, or one small group of people, decided it should resemble. Scary sure ... but you've got the wrong moment.
That happens when, if you believe in copyright, you download copyrighted music and use it, not when the tool to make it possible is created.
And it sure is changed if you click on over to fairmusic.com and pay what you think its worth - directly to the artist.
Are you asking for a vote on every invention or something?
File sharing antagonises the control element of copyright - it needn't antagonise copyrights other function - getting the artist rewarded.
Cheers
James
Wouldn't one use for a distributed operating system be in artificial intelligence - especially for neural nets?
Aggregating the processor cycles and memory to facilitate massively parrallel processing - giving access to the level of computation required for artificial intelligence?
James
Regardless of the breakup MS will still carry on with its:
[MS-html] nonsense [/ms-html]
[ms-xml] Complete nonsense [/ms-xml]
Still - better than no action at all.
Who knows where we'll be in one and a half years anyway?
James
Did I miss the irony here? - Not sure which planet you are living on.
Peering as you describe it, 'free', died with the commericalization of the net about 10 years ago.
Recently there has been a real ruckus in international telecom and internet development policy circles over the 'peering' arrangements for trans-pacific traffic.
Basically the large US and Canadian carriers charge ISPs in places like Australia and Korea and Latin America for access to their network (to get to the bulk of content in the US) - these 'Tier One ISPs charge the smaller ones for traffic originated on their networks (sent traffic) and to get traffic (receieved traffic).
In a funny version of peering, however the Tier One ISPs don't pay the smaller ISPs for the traffic sent over their networks (ie from the US) to the smaller networks customers.
In this way the relationships are very unequal. Some say this is the free market at work - the big networks have content that the smaller ones want therefore they should pay. Others say that this will result in a very hierarchial network structure dominated by north american network firms.
Perhaps the solution is for ISPs to pay those upstream for any traffic they send out? (How would this affect Gnutella and FreeNet?)
Anyway - this dispute is being played out in the APEC telecommunications forum which, under heavy US and Canadian pressure deferred attempts at regulating these relationships for another two years. They call it International Charging Arrangements for Interent Services (ICAIS).
Cheers
James
Now, friend, you are missing the point of ratings in this context.
... distributed file sharing is bad for business, but business has never been good for art.
Think of this more in the context of radio play ratings - the more your song is played the more of the pool of royalties paid by the broadcasters (gained from advertising or another source) that is paid to you.
Unfortunately selling bottles (CDs) instead of the wine (songs) is on the way out.
By all means let's reward the artists - but on the basis of play and popularity.
IMHO, streaming customized radio with short ads included will be a viable model - that way you don't need to store the music, the artists get paid (by the advertisers) and we can all stop worrying about IP piracy!
James Howison
why all the fear
We want the free flow of ideas only encumbered in such a way as to maximumally encourage the creation of new ideas.
The discussion has so far assumed that there is, or could be, only one motivating factor - money.
One of the reasons that artists are not screaming as loudly as the record companies is that there work is being heard and appreciated - even if it is not paid for. Art, for me, is about communication - the joy is having others listen and getting your message out.
For some artists that is the goal - and IMHO art unemcumbered by commerce is likely to produce greater expressions of culture and better art. This motivational factor is greatly increased by zero-cost distribution and the free-flow of cultural products.
For others - the goal is the cash. Well I say the onus lies with them to try to wring out payment. Why should society be forced to forgo zero-cost reproduction just to help them. or to put it more succintly - why should society brand 'kids' (or anyone) a criminal just so that that 'cash artists' can get paid.
As a first step we should create a legal system around information production which allows the authors (person or group of persons) to earn money from its distribution (in whatever way they can make work).
The difference is that we should disallow third parties from earning money from others contributions. the author should not be able to 'sell' the rights to others, and should through legal suit recover any money made on the back of their creativity by others. http://jhowison.tripod.com