I definitely agree that many of the issues faced by programmers/software today, are larger issues humanity (and individual humans) must deal with in order for things to "get better". I believe the immortal words were: "If it were easy, everyone would be doing it."
However, the "black box" analogy always bothers the heck out of me. Being a rather unorthodox and original thinker, I often have trouble finding the box. Yet I still get told from time to time: "think outside the box." I was born outside the box, and I've had a very painful time trying to fit inside so that other people could see and understand what I was doing. Thinking outside the box is the easy part, it's going outside the box, then trying to poke a lifeline back into the box to help others get out that is so difficult.
If I open my mind as far as some people ask, my brain will fall out...
There is no extortion. There is no coercion. There is no foul play.
I goes to store. I plunks down $$$. I gets goodies. I does what I wants with goodies, as long as it doesn't break any other obvious and un-related laws. (Like smashing in someone's head with a baseball bat, or distributing copyrighted works illegally)
Anything else is something other than a valid transaction. I will do what I want with what I have bought and paid for. The vendor has no right to tell me how to use what they have sold. (There may be laws affecting hazardous things I may buy, like medicines, but they are never controlled by the vendor, and for good reason! This is supposed to be a free country. )
Sure, they need guidance, but it's not up to you to set the direction in their life. You'll provide a firm foundation and make sure they grow up "right", but where they go with it is ultimately up to them.
I've got two kids, 9 and 12, and I'm at a loss for what direction to steer them in career-wise.
Have them do what they love to do. If they don't know what that is yet, help them look for it. It's better to be a great artist in a bad market for artists, than a bad lawyer in a great market for lawyers.
we should be able to freely move around to wherever there's work. And buy from anywhere - no more region coding or fake export restrictions.
Wow, I must be missing a lot. I didn't think it was that tough to move to another country. As to region coding, it would seem this nastly law called the DMCA is really the only thing enforcing that on anyone...
Where are all those fair-weather libertarians now?
Can't say I'm fair weather, but I'm all for liberty! I think it's great that a bright kid growing up in India has opportunities to grow right at home, just like a bright kid growing up in the US. The more opportunities for everyone the better.
Us vs them doesn't seem to make a lot of sense when "us" is the human race...
I read some more of your stuff after posting and realized you are definitely more aware of the issues than I originally thought, my apologies for the inflamatory statements.
only professional-quality audio devices will be able to copy audio marked as "copyrighted", as all "consumer" digital devices will be crippled
You seem to think that this is somehow possible. I feel that as long as consumers have fully functional digital computers (read linux, BSD's etc...), it will be impossible to "cripple" them in this way. To me the CBDTPA will plainly never be passed, especially in a form that would affect all computing devices. It seems more like the "bigger evil" that is swung over our heads to get us to accept the DMCA as it now stands.
Further, some measures in the CBDTPA such as having the government regulate copy protection instead of just blindly protecting it might lend more legitimacy to certain measures in the DMCA. Both are terrible laws and I'm glad I don't have to choose between them... I can simply protest both!
if you actually read the GPL you'll find that it has nothing to say about using the software.
Well, if you'd read my post you'd see it was talking about End User License Agreements and had nothing to do with the GPL. "End User" implies just that, some shmuck using a program.
An attack on the GPL is also an attack on the legal structure that currently allows draconian copyrights.
Yes, well in some ways that is true, but I think, as you were attempting to point out, that the GPL can stand without those "draconian copyrights". If it can't, well, may it fall with the rest.
But in the end, if tech companies make the rules, the consumers still have the final say. If they don't like something, they don't buy it.
Ahh yes, the majority rules that's *always* fair. I'm guessing you've never witnessed a lynching? Basically if you think it's a simple matter of "letting the market decide" (especially under the DMCA) you, quite frankly, don't understand the issues. You've already been sold a bill (G?) of goods.
If the government mandated the technology, the tech companies wouldn't be allowed to change it. The tech industries wouldn't have a voice. The consumers would not have a voice.
Oh yes, the tech companies are really in need of a voice here! Hogwash. The US goverment's role is supposed to be, at least to some extent, as the voice of the people, especially those without a voice. Well, at least that was the rhetoric in years past. I mean, really, if the government is this giant monster not listening to anyone, perhaps it's time to overthrow it? Of course, that means no more copyright laws (or property laws, or any other laws for that matter).
You're either for or against the DMCA. These guys seem to be for it if anything. You support them if you want to, I wouldn't touch em with a ten foot pole.
The problem with choosing between two evils is... Well, that they're both evil!
Palladium without DMCA but the government going after commercial piracy is vastly better...
You're losing me here. I just said this group is neutral or pro DMCA. If I've missed something on that score, please enlighten me. Palladium + the DMCA is one horrendous beast!
In fact, I'd argue that the DMCA as it stands is significantly worse than a government mandated solution because it gives out authority without responsibility. The DVD CCA gets patent like controls to license DVD-players, yet it has no patent whatsover on anything inside the players. No originality, no limits, full enforcement on anything that can be termed a "copyright protection measure".
The case with software with an EULA is not so clear though, as you'll still be bound by a contract even as an end-user
Ya, but considering no one can prove what you did or didn't click, and further considering that judges tend to throw out licenses where one side is a "private individual doing normal things" and the other side is a corporation with a "team of lawyers", just how binding to you think an EULA really is? (outside of Rhode Island at least...)
don't be surprised to see them lobbying, 28 years from now, to change the law and extend the copyright period
But in the mean time, we'll have liberated around 54 years worth of copyrighted works that otherwise would never enter the public domain! This could very well spark a new renaissance.
Just cause you're fighting a war... Don't forget to win some battles!
exactly! Enforcement hasn't even been tried yet.
on
Copyright Rumblings
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Everyone keeps saying how "copyright can't be protected" on the internet. Well, that's absolutely right if you follow this rediculous method of turning a blind eye while crimes occur, and attempt to make it impossible for the crime to happen at all.
People learned long ago in the real world that for a free society to function properly, many things must be possible, but actual crimes need to be policed and criminals punished to have law and order. How long do you think it'll take them to realize that even in the digital world crime can not be coded out of the system?
The two questions of copyright:
1) Is it a crime to take some things apart and understand how they work? Yes! Even worse if you share that knowledge!
2) Is it a crime to knowingly aquire copyrighted works illegally and use them? Not at all!
As far as "hacking" and "hack value" you are absolutely correct. There are people who will always do their best to fully understand whatever they want, and who take this as one of their most important intellectual liberties. "proving" that understanding by "cracking the uncrackable" will always be one undercurrent of that whole process.
However, illegal re-distribution of copyrighted works is another matter entirely. Every technological tool that helps people re-distribute, also helps those who would stop re-distribution.
You so totally misunderstand the world around you. I don't know a single person without a personal computer, and a hard drive. Do you think they need to "rent studio time" to make copies of data? What? Are you going to live in everyone's hard drive and control every single thing they ever do to make sure they don't "pirate" someone's work?
The DeCSS hack was perpetrated by a 16 year old kid in his spare time with a personal computer. A computer just like the one everyone has in their living room. There will always be bright people. There will always be bright kids. The idea of trying to stifle all those human beings by limiting their capabilities, just so one "approved" group can profit from their creations, is vile and disgusting.
Is there really an underground of millionaire hackers out there, digital Robin Hoods...
Yes, but they are rich in brainpower, spare time, and available knowledge. Which ones are you hoping to take away?
I see comments like this sometimes on/. and it is a classic case of the/. crowd showing their ignorance over something they know little about.
I see responses like this on/. and I think it's a classic case of someone working comfortably in a niche market without really stopping to fully understand that market.
I'm a programmer so, I'll digress into that for a moment: A decent programmer for a mid to large sized company might feel that expensive tools, solutions and support are required to create high quality software. It's certainly true that some of these high priced compilers, tools and other gadgets can be helpful. However, a great programmer (engineer etc...), will always assess the resources and environment available and will build or find the pieces that are supported by the budget at hand and use those to succeed no matter what.
Without knowing a thing about the business of sound engineers, I have to assume that the basic principle is the same. For a certain amount a very basic system can be had. For a somewhat higher amount, a "reasonable" system can be had. Beyond that, more expensive equipement and assistence can be had, but the benefits quickly diminish as the expenses increase. A great sound engineer should be able to take their knowledge and experience to task in aquiring the most appropriate (rather than most expensive) equipement for the job at hand.
So tell us in terms we understand. Where does $20,000 really fall on the scale and why? Further, what is "reasonable" by the criteria that if it was your money you'd still be willing to pay for it...
Which isn't a lot and isn't exactly consumer rights.
From the mission statement: ADP strongly opposes efforts to make the government design and mandate copy-protection technologies
But notice they don't say anything about stopping the government from "enforcing" said technologies once the industry has adopted them. They aren't anti-DMCA, they aren't about copyright and patent reform.
Heck read what they stand for:
The Alliance for Digital Progress (ADP) strongly supports the protection of intellectual property, including digital content such as movies, music, and software.
ADP believes that private-sector collaboration among the technology, consumer electronics, and content industries creates the most effective tools to combat digital piracy. These tools provide innovative and concrete solutions that: Meet the needs of consumers; Succeed in the marketplace; and Foster a thriving digital economy.
ADP believes the proper role of Government is to enforce existing laws against illegal copying.
Are you a member of one of the industries listed above? I'm not. This is simply a self-serving coalition to try and get the government to stay out of the way and let *them* make the rules.
The point isn't to rationalize why downloading music should be O.K. It's not. The point is to wonder, "Why the heck hasn't this industry already been displaced by smaller more efficient competitors?".
I have a fiddle teacher for a step-mom and a few of her students have pressed a disc or two in their time. Believe you me, those students aren't *losing* money by pressing CD's and selling them for $10 at shows. Some actually make a pretty good income. Enough that they don't have to worry about summer jobs at least.
What about the production (studio time, equipment, engineers...)
Not something the record industry really pays for anyways. Some artists might get help, but most end up doing this pretty much on their own ticket.
or marketing?
Well, a lot of money gets thrown at that one... Unfortuneately it's always hard to determine just what is a waste and what is useful. I would think a marketing budget should be determined based on the size/cost of a product, not the cost of the product based on the marketing budget. This seems to be where I part company with most RIAA members.
In fact, "letting the market decide" the cost, by trying to sell a product for as much as can be gotten, before even determing what it costs to manufacture has been a popular business practice (particularly in telcos) in the last few years. Of course, the nice thing about music is that when it costs almost nothing to produce, there's a lot of leeway between "percieved value" and "production cost". Call it a "cushy middle".
This is what makes up the bolk of the costs
Yes, and for some people fat makes up a lot of this bolk. This doesn't mean a person *must* way 300 pounds to survive.
People are angry because the RIAA doesn't want people ripping cds and sharing the content online. Because they are taking steps to prevent this, it upsets the music pirates.
Ya, who other than a pirate would be upset by this:
No black flags with skull and crossbones, no cutlasses, cannons, or daggers identify today's pirates. You can't see them coming; there's no warning shot across your bow. Yet rest assured the pirates are out there because today there is plenty of gold (and platinum and diamonds) to be had. Today's pirates operate not on the high seas but on the Internet, in illegal CD factories, distribution centers, and on the street. The pirate's credo is still the same--why pay for it when it's so easy to steal? The credo is as wrong as it ever was. Stealing is still illegal, unethical, and all too frequent in today's digital age. That is why RIAA continues to fight music piracy.
Wait, I'm a programmer working for a small company. I make my living off of the compromise of copyright. It pisses the hell out of me!
Copyright infringement is not the same thing as killing people at sea and taking everything they have. Copyright infringement is also not the same thing as breaking into someone's house and stealing what they own. It's not even the same as depriving someone else of their property. Copyright is more akin to jaywalking, trespassing or jumping a subway toll gate. Copyright is valid exactly as long as society decides to make it valid.
Groups like the RIAA would be wise to remember this fact if they value their "intellectual property".
Slashdot Mirror
Just pay the extra $25 dollars.
That sounds like the kind of thing that started a certain tea party in Boston...
I definitely agree that many of the issues faced by programmers/software today, are larger issues humanity (and individual humans) must deal with in order for things to "get better". I believe the immortal words were: "If it were easy, everyone would be doing it."
However, the "black box" analogy always bothers the heck out of me. Being a rather unorthodox and original thinker, I often have trouble finding the box. Yet I still get told from time to time: "think outside the box." I was born outside the box, and I've had a very painful time trying to fit inside so that other people could see and understand what I was doing. Thinking outside the box is the easy part, it's going outside the box, then trying to poke a lifeline back into the box to help others get out that is so difficult.
If I open my mind as far as some people ask, my brain will fall out...
There is no extortion. There is no coercion. There is no foul play.
I goes to store. I plunks down $$$. I gets goodies. I does what I wants with goodies, as long as it doesn't break any other obvious and un-related laws. (Like smashing in someone's head with a baseball bat, or distributing copyrighted works illegally)
Anything else is something other than a valid transaction. I will do what I want with what I have bought and paid for. The vendor has no right to tell me how to use what they have sold. (There may be laws affecting hazardous things I may buy, like medicines, but they are never controlled by the vendor, and for good reason! This is supposed to be a free country. )
Sure, they need guidance, but it's not up to you to set the direction in their life. You'll provide a firm foundation and make sure they grow up "right", but where they go with it is ultimately up to them.
I've got two kids, 9 and 12, and I'm at a loss for what direction to steer them in career-wise.
Have them do what they love to do. If they don't know what that is yet, help them look for it. It's better to be a great artist in a bad market for artists, than a bad lawyer in a great market for lawyers.
we should be able to freely move around to wherever there's work. And buy from anywhere - no more region coding or fake export restrictions.
Wow, I must be missing a lot. I didn't think it was that tough to move to another country. As to region coding, it would seem this nastly law called the DMCA is really the only thing enforcing that on anyone...
Where are all those fair-weather libertarians now?
Can't say I'm fair weather, but I'm all for liberty! I think it's great that a bright kid growing up in India has opportunities to grow right at home, just like a bright kid growing up in the US. The more opportunities for everyone the better.
Us vs them doesn't seem to make a lot of sense when "us" is the human race...
No, the real winners will be the countries with oil. Mad Max, here we come!
I certainly hope people are willing to accept nuclear power before that eventuality occurs. Now waterworld, there's a scary thought!
I read some more of your stuff after posting and realized you are definitely more aware of the issues than I originally thought, my apologies for the inflamatory statements.
only professional-quality audio devices will be able to copy audio marked as "copyrighted", as all "consumer" digital devices will be crippled
You seem to think that this is somehow possible. I feel that as long as consumers have fully functional digital computers (read linux, BSD's etc...), it will be impossible to "cripple" them in this way. To me the CBDTPA will plainly never be passed, especially in a form that would affect all computing devices. It seems more like the "bigger evil" that is swung over our heads to get us to accept the DMCA as it now stands.
Further, some measures in the CBDTPA such as having the government regulate copy protection instead of just blindly protecting it might lend more legitimacy to certain measures in the DMCA. Both are terrible laws and I'm glad I don't have to choose between them... I can simply protest both!
if you actually read the GPL you'll find that it has nothing to say about using the software.
Well, if you'd read my post you'd see it was talking about End User License Agreements and had nothing to do with the GPL. "End User" implies just that, some shmuck using a program.
An attack on the GPL is also an attack on the legal structure that currently allows draconian copyrights.
Yes, well in some ways that is true, but I think, as you were attempting to point out, that the GPL can stand without those "draconian copyrights". If it can't, well, may it fall with the rest.
But in the end, if tech companies make the rules, the consumers still have the final say. If they don't like something, they don't buy it.
Ahh yes, the majority rules that's *always* fair. I'm guessing you've never witnessed a lynching? Basically if you think it's a simple matter of "letting the market decide" (especially under the DMCA) you, quite frankly, don't understand the issues. You've already been sold a bill (G?) of goods.
If the government mandated the technology, the tech companies wouldn't be allowed to change it. The tech industries wouldn't have a voice. The consumers would not have a voice.
Oh yes, the tech companies are really in need of a voice here! Hogwash. The US goverment's role is supposed to be, at least to some extent, as the voice of the people, especially those without a voice. Well, at least that was the rhetoric in years past. I mean, really, if the government is this giant monster not listening to anyone, perhaps it's time to overthrow it? Of course, that means no more copyright laws (or property laws, or any other laws for that matter).
You're either for or against the DMCA. These guys seem to be for it if anything. You support them if you want to, I wouldn't touch em with a ten foot pole.
The problem with choosing between two evils is... Well, that they're both evil!
Palladium without DMCA but the government going after commercial piracy is vastly better...
You're losing me here. I just said this group is neutral or pro DMCA. If I've missed something on that score, please enlighten me. Palladium + the DMCA is one horrendous beast!
In fact, I'd argue that the DMCA as it stands is significantly worse than a government mandated solution because it gives out authority without responsibility. The DVD CCA gets patent like controls to license DVD-players, yet it has no patent whatsover on anything inside the players. No originality, no limits, full enforcement on anything that can be termed a "copyright protection measure".
Problem with something like that targetted at piracy is that it also hurts independants who have any kind of original data to share...
Information sharing is a powerful positive good. This is the hacker eithic.
The case with software with an EULA is not so clear though, as you'll still be bound by a contract even as an end-user
Ya, but considering no one can prove what you did or didn't click, and further considering that judges tend to throw out licenses where one side is a "private individual doing normal things" and the other side is a corporation with a "team of lawyers", just how binding to you think an EULA really is? (outside of Rhode Island at least...)
don't be surprised to see them lobbying, 28 years from now, to change the law and extend the copyright period
But in the mean time, we'll have liberated around 54 years worth of copyrighted works that otherwise would never enter the public domain! This could very well spark a new renaissance.
Just cause you're fighting a war... Don't forget to win some battles!
Everyone keeps saying how "copyright can't be protected" on the internet. Well, that's absolutely right if you follow this rediculous method of turning a blind eye while crimes occur, and attempt to make it impossible for the crime to happen at all.
People learned long ago in the real world that for a free society to function properly, many things must be possible, but actual crimes need to be policed and criminals punished to have law and order. How long do you think it'll take them to realize that even in the digital world crime can not be coded out of the system?
The two questions of copyright:
1) Is it a crime to take some things apart and understand how they work? Yes! Even worse if you share that knowledge!
2) Is it a crime to knowingly aquire copyrighted works illegally and use them? Not at all!
As far as "hacking" and "hack value" you are absolutely correct. There are people who will always do their best to fully understand whatever they want, and who take this as one of their most important intellectual liberties. "proving" that understanding by "cracking the uncrackable" will always be one undercurrent of that whole process.
However, illegal re-distribution of copyrighted works is another matter entirely. Every technological tool that helps people re-distribute, also helps those who would stop re-distribution.
pay money to rent studio time to copy audio
I think you need to read the right to read by Richard Stallman.
You so totally misunderstand the world around you. I don't know a single person without a personal computer, and a hard drive. Do you think they need to "rent studio time" to make copies of data? What? Are you going to live in everyone's hard drive and control every single thing they ever do to make sure they don't "pirate" someone's work?
The DeCSS hack was perpetrated by a 16 year old kid in his spare time with a personal computer. A computer just like the one everyone has in their living room. There will always be bright people. There will always be bright kids. The idea of trying to stifle all those human beings by limiting their capabilities, just so one "approved" group can profit from their creations, is vile and disgusting.
Is there really an underground of millionaire hackers out there, digital Robin Hoods...
Yes, but they are rich in brainpower, spare time, and available knowledge. Which ones are you hoping to take away?
I see comments like this sometimes on /. and it is a classic case of the /. crowd showing their ignorance over something they know little about.
/. and I think it's a classic case of someone working comfortably in a niche market without really stopping to fully understand that market.
I see responses like this on
I'm a programmer so, I'll digress into that for a moment:
A decent programmer for a mid to large sized company might feel that expensive tools, solutions and support are required to create high quality software. It's certainly true that some of these high priced compilers, tools and other gadgets can be helpful. However, a great programmer (engineer etc...), will always assess the resources and environment available and will build or find the pieces that are supported by the budget at hand and use those to succeed no matter what.
Without knowing a thing about the business of sound engineers, I have to assume that the basic principle is the same. For a certain amount a very basic system can be had. For a somewhat higher amount, a "reasonable" system can be had. Beyond that, more expensive equipement and assistence can be had, but the benefits quickly diminish as the expenses increase. A great sound engineer should be able to take their knowledge and experience to task in aquiring the most appropriate (rather than most expensive) equipement for the job at hand.
So tell us in terms we understand. Where does $20,000 really fall on the scale and why? Further, what is "reasonable" by the criteria that if it was your money you'd still be willing to pay for it...
Which isn't a lot and isn't exactly consumer rights.
From the mission statement:
ADP strongly opposes efforts to make the government design and mandate copy-protection technologies
But notice they don't say anything about stopping the government from "enforcing" said technologies once the industry has adopted them. They aren't anti-DMCA, they aren't about copyright and patent reform.
Heck read what they stand for:
The Alliance for Digital Progress (ADP) strongly supports the protection of intellectual property, including digital content such as movies, music, and software.
ADP believes that private-sector collaboration among the technology, consumer electronics, and content industries creates the most effective tools to combat digital piracy. These tools provide innovative and concrete solutions that:
Meet the needs of consumers;
Succeed in the marketplace; and
Foster a thriving digital economy.
ADP believes the proper role of Government is to enforce existing laws against illegal copying.
Are you a member of one of the industries listed above? I'm not. This is simply a self-serving coalition to try and get the government to stay out of the way and let *them* make the rules.
The internet would seem to be a new channel... Guess that's what all the hubbub is about then eh?
Only problem is, I'm not at all sure how easy this channel will be to fit in someone's back pocket.
You and orangesquid both... Wouldn't have that 2 little sentences could lead to that much food for thought.
The point isn't to rationalize why downloading music should be O.K. It's not. The point is to wonder, "Why the heck hasn't this industry already been displaced by smaller more efficient competitors?".
How many of those people do you know?
I have a fiddle teacher for a step-mom and a few of her students have pressed a disc or two in their time. Believe you me, those students aren't *losing* money by pressing CD's and selling them for $10 at shows. Some actually make a pretty good income. Enough that they don't have to worry about summer jobs at least.
What about the production (studio time, equipment, engineers...)
Not something the record industry really pays for anyways. Some artists might get help, but most end up doing this pretty much on their own ticket.
or marketing?
Well, a lot of money gets thrown at that one... Unfortuneately it's always hard to determine just what is a waste and what is useful. I would think a marketing budget should be determined based on the size/cost of a product, not the cost of the product based on the marketing budget. This seems to be where I part company with most RIAA members.
In fact, "letting the market decide" the cost, by trying to sell a product for as much as can be gotten, before even determing what it costs to manufacture has been a popular business practice (particularly in telcos) in the last few years. Of course, the nice thing about music is that when it costs almost nothing to produce, there's a lot of leeway between "percieved value" and "production cost". Call it a "cushy middle".
This is what makes up the bolk of the costs
Yes, and for some people fat makes up a lot of this bolk. This doesn't mean a person *must* way 300 pounds to survive.
Ya, who other than a pirate would be upset by this:Wait, I'm a programmer working for a small company. I make my living off of the compromise of copyright. It pisses the hell out of me!
Copyright infringement is not the same thing as killing people at sea and taking everything they have. Copyright infringement is also not the same thing as breaking into someone's house and stealing what they own. It's not even the same as depriving someone else of their property. Copyright is more akin to jaywalking, trespassing or jumping a subway toll gate. Copyright is valid exactly as long as society decides to make it valid.
Groups like the RIAA would be wise to remember this fact if they value their "intellectual property".