...if Quake s your preferred pick up method. Is this a troll, or just standard Karma Whoring Dogma?
For instance, Gender can be used for in-game advantages -- some Males may hesitate to shoot a female,
A weakness, they deserve to die. If you can't shoot a female model in Quake, you're an idiot.
others become more hostile if killed by a female.
A weakness, they deserve to die. Focus your rage on them, and forget about me, your mistake.
Females may pretend to be male to avoid being hit on or harassed,
A weakness, they deserve to die. Try shooting some one. It'll make you feel better.
and both sexes may pretend to be opposite genders for role-playing
A weakness, they deserve to die. Go play Ultima or some crap.
or exploration reasons.
A weakne... HUH?!?
This would have no effect on the Gamers I know, and no realy social implications in any of the games I've played. I don't check out the bods on Female Quakers, I frag em.
As Cartman put it... "If a girl tried something like that with me, I'd be like hey, get your bitch ass back in the kitchen, and make me some pie"
...convincing my boss to take a trip to the Millenium Dome.
Why the hell would I want to get myself scanned? I never see my self when I'm playing, but if I could make everyone else look like my boss, I can garauntee an increase in my Frag Count.
I also, have appreciated your thoughts on this matter. It has given me much to think about as well. However, I am growing a bit fatigued with this subject, as it often feels like a lost cause, and as such this will be my final post on the matter under this aticle. Rest assured I will read any responses.
I will finish with this though. I am not saying it is wrong to profit from software, just that it needs to be done in a different way than Software Mon^H^H^HCorporations are doing today.
Since M$ is the worst case of this, and has been our example this far, let me ask you a question. Is a word processing package really worth more to you than the Operating System itself? M$ seems to think so. In many stores, It costs more to buy M$ Office 2000 (~$527.36) than it does to buy M$ Windows 2000 (~$276.97).
This is not reasonable, and is IMHO the actual reason that M$ products are so widely pirated, not the other way around as they claim(M$ says that their prices are driven high to recoup the cost of piracy, they charge the good guys for the actions of the bad).
Now assume they charged a reasonable price for MS Word. I think $20 is reasonable, others may not, but given the choice between buying a copy of software from the source, for a reasonable price, or getting a free copy, which I have no gaurantee will be virus free, fully functional, etc., I'll fork over the $20, but M$ better be ready to hold themselves responsible for any viruses, missing features that are advertised to be in the product, etc.
I realize, of course, that this may not be a reasonable business model, but I can't help but wonder if they wouldn't sell 30 times more copies (the amount necessary to come in around the same profit range) at a reasonable price than they do now, especially with the Market Share that they posess.
My closing point is this, there is _NO_ way to fully prevent piracy. If I can hear it on my computer, I can record it and play it back. If I can make it run even once on my computer, I can make it run a second time. If I can get it in a digital format, I can duplicate it. Why waste so much money chasing a ghost? Not to mention the cost to taxpayers to pursue these cases. It doesn't matter where one stands on IP, trying to enforce it is a waste of time and money, as well as a bane on progress, so find a different way to profit from the same Ideas. Maybe you won't profit as much, but does M$ really deserve that much money? Is a word processor more important to you than food? I haven't seen any billionaire farmers in the news lately, and even the laziest farmers work as hard and as long hours as most programmers proclaim to, just to be able to feed and house their families.
That's true if it's obtained by the government (or an agent acting on behalf of the government). Private citizens have more leeway in how they can collect evidence.
Thanks, I do seem to recall this after reading your post.
Any idea how it matters where corporations are concerned, which are not necessarily either?
I think this is the article you asked my opinion on? If not, here is my opinion anyhow. Take it with a grain of salt, and let me apologize for the length of this post in advance.
I agree, except on the software part. Books, magazines, music, movie etc help people learn (besides entertain), and apply the ideas they learn as they like, without charges. I think of most software as a tool. I don't expect to be able to borrow it out of the library and keep a copy forever, the same way I don't expect to borrow a bulldozer and keep it forever.
The perception of Software as a tool is one that the Software Industry has been pushing for a very long time now. The truth is Knowledge in general is a tool. Software is just a different method of recording a set of instructions. The computer interpretting those instructions is the tool.
An odd example: If I wrote a flowchart to show the way that _I_ made a peanut butter and jelly sandwich (I did this once as a kid!), and attempted to sue all the kids in the world who told their parents they wanted theirs made the same way(with potato chips in them!), everyone would agree that I was nuts. What if I had actually thought of this first (I admit I pirated the idea from the little girl next to me), and had actually patented it? You'd still think I was nuts, and anyone who wanted to put potato chips on their PB&J would continue to do so anyway.
Ok, fine, I lost that lawsuit. I'm gonna go sue the Producers of the movie that popularized my idea without giving me my royalties, and the authors of the 1000 or so cookbooks, that rudely took my flowchart and made recipes out of it.
Still think it's absurd? Yeah, because it is. Even if I legitimately thought of the idea first. Even if I was legitimately the first to do it. Even if I had spent 100 hours of my own time, and bought 500 loaves of bread and 50 jars of PB&J, most people would think I was nuts to demand payment of them, just because they built their sandwiches the same way.
You could use similar logic to argue against letting people borrow books, magazines, etc, but I think there's a difference. Software, like MS Word doesn't help you learn. You don't really need MS Word. There's nothing you can do with MS Word that you can basically do without it.
But there is still a way to profit off of it, without directly selling it. If you (as a company) spend time to develop a product, then nobody is going to know that product better than you, and generally they are going to come to you for training and support for that product. Additionally, when that product doesn't do exactly what they want, but damn close, they're going to pay you money to figure out how to make that product do what they want. They may even pay you money to teach them how to make that product do what they want. Example: OpenNMS.
Another possibility is that you develop software that absolutely kick ass, everybody loves it, and you give it away for free, under a fully functional, but request (not demand) payment, "If you want to see it get better, send me money so I can keep making it". See WinAMP.
Or best of all, do it because it's what you love to do, and because you believe it should be done, and because you want to contribute to the world you live in. Package it with cool and unique but cheap stuff (Stickers), sell T-Shirts, and give recognition to the individuals or companies that support your efforts. I bought a copy of OpenBSD just to have a CD with a Pufferfish on it.
Books contain ideas that you can't expect to get on your own. I'm at a loss to explain it better. One way to look at is that books impart knowledge, and software and equipment are facilitators.
As I said computers are the tool, software just the instructions to make them work. If anybody should be funding software development, it's the computer manufacturers who are selling you a tool, and making you buy the manual from someone else.
It did actually used to be this way, I might add, before M$. Apple computers came with Apple's OSs on them(and still do). Mainframes with Unix. IBMs with IBM-DOS. However, once people started buying M$ to replace the installed OSs, the computer manufacturers eventually began selling computers without OSs. Do you think they removed the cost associated with the development of the software?
With those books, you can obtain the knowledge to build the software and equipment you think you need.
We as a society should be supporting the growth of that society, not reinventing the wheel, if it has already been done, the knowledge that you need to do it again should be freely available, I think that software falls into the category of this Knowledge. Building equipment, a physical undertaking is different.
Also, I think software in libraries is a good idea if the idea is for trial use, use the software until you return it. Pay for it afterwards.
Why pay for it afterwards? You haven't cost anybody any money by not paying for it. Instead, pay a company to better it, something they may not be able to do without the necessary funding.
Open Source is nice, but there's a lot of other nice software we wouldn't have because it takes too much time and skill to produce for free.
Free is relative. If computer manufacturers or corporations were paying to have it developed to begin with (for the purposes of their own profits), then it would already be paid for.
Copy machines in libraries is a good point though, and has significance to the software industry. Even though you can copy an entire book in the library, people still buy books. Though, sometimes it is just as expensive to photocopy a book, not to mention it's time consuming.
Indeed, I would buy a copy of an Operating System from the company that created it, if that cost was fair, and they were only profitting minorly from the cost of distribution.
Lasty, I should mention I'm a bit of a hypocrite because I use some pirated software. Almost all the software I use often (once a month or more), I buy, if it's not free that is. I'm not sure if this is good or bad, but, for instance, I don't want to pay $100+ bucks for MS Word, when I use it rarely to view and lightly edit a Word file someone sent me in an email. Also, I have no stolen software that I would buy to use if I wasn't able to steal it.
Excactly the point of this whole diatribe. Software is not priced fairly. Value is a relative thing, and one thing may have many different values to many different people. Perhaps if the software industry were to open it's eyes and see this, and build a more morally correct business model, then we wouldn't have the problems that we face now.
It is easy to take a part of a sentence, out of context, and twist it to mean whatever you want, but if I may repost the section of which we speak, with a little more detail, Jefferson wrote:
Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until wecopied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.
Additionally, you stated:
This means society may give you the right to sell your song, and have people to buy your song (and thus have you profit from it) as an encouragement to you to write more songs.
And true, Jefferson was speaking that society may grant you such privilege, however, it seems obvious to me that he disdains of such privileges. As you were quick to point out later, society may grant a lot of rights, such as the right to own another man in the case of Slavery. This does not make society correct or moral, it just makes the point that society has power.
The only other thing in your post that I feel compelled to comment on is this, where you wrote:
A thing has no value if it costs nothing, either in time, space, or material goods to reproduce. Unfortunately, even ideas take some time, and if they are recorded, take space and material goods to reproduce. Further, any idea of merit probably took a master artist a non-trivial amount of time to create. Perhaps some artists feel the reward of creation is it's own payment--but most people live in the real world, and the time it took them to create their idea was time they don't have to spend to make money to put food on their table or a roof over their head.
Value is a relative thing, and just because you hold value in something whether it be tangible or not, does not mean I hold that same value for it. And yes, it would be arrogant of you to assume that it does. What's more, I cannot be held responsible for your time and efforts, unless I have had some direct impact on them, but when you spend your time to write a song, that I did not ask you to write, did not want you to write, and did not enjoy when you were finished writing, I do not feel compelled to reimburse you for your time. It was a choice that you have made to spend doing as you wished, and any loss of income, or inability to support your family that results from such actions, are your responsibility, not mine.
Doh, I have to say I stand corrected on the War with the British. Got a little carried away, and should have done some fact checking before opening my mouth.
And yes, the ideas about patents and copyright law did in fact carry over from Enbland as well, and were the subject of much debate. But I do not believe it was Jefferson's belief that patents should not be observed to Brits, and maintained the other way round, as the AC implied.
You would have a good point if making music, or any other creatively inspired work, were as easy as you make it sound. To quote:
Sorry, I was not trying to belittle the time and effort that many creative musicians put into making there music, I was just trying to keep the discussion simple. However, my views are still the same.
As a studio musician, I know something of the costs it takes to produce an album, with or without any kind of backing. Cost of renting studio time (which for an album runs anywhere from $1000 to over a $1 million for a decent studio and enough time to record and work), instruments (which are damn pricey), audio equipment (musicians have their favorite mics, cables, adapters, effects pedals) and not to mention the media such as ADAT which is used at the studio to capture the music. Do I have an explicit right to make money off of my investment and effort? No. Do I have a right to prevent others from stealing my creation and profiting off of my investment and effort? Yes.
Yes, you do, unfortunately the simple fact is that the only reliable method that you have to do this, is to not release it at all. It may not seem right, it may not even be right (altough I think that further down the line, we as a society will see that the free sharing of information is best for society as a whole), but it is a fact.
The government has nothing to do with this issue - bringing it up is nothing but a red herring.
A little extreme? Maybe, but not quite a red herring. I was just trying to point out that government involvement on a VERY detailed level, is the only way to enforce your copyrights. And it is the level of this involvement that is detrimental to us all.
IP copyright issues are disturbingly similar to patents - if anyone can simply use and enjoy my work without any form of mandatory reinbursement that I can set, then my incentive for creating work is destroyed.
There was a time, long ago, when there were no copyright laws. Strangely though, we have some incredibly beutiful music, and famous musicians from those time periods. Bards like Shakespere, Classical Composers like Beethoven, Mozart, Rachmoninav, and because they were good they were hired by the rich to perfom and occasionally commisioned to compose new music for a living. Strangely enough, I do not believe that their motives were of a monetarial nature, and although their works were used and even "stolen" by other performers, they were not driven to living on the streets, because they were able to demand a higher price for their performances, being the original artists.
Musicians are caught between a rock and greed with internet distribution - on mp3.com, for instance, how many thousands of bands exist that haven't made more than $5 for every band that makes a decent living?
How many of them are good is more the question. How many of the bands on mp3.com deserve $5? And who decides whether they do or not?
The alternative to that is to become popular (which in 99% of cases takes a recording label's marketing power) and then watch as millions of people simply make a "loaned" copy from a friend and "forget" to pay for the music. And if you're popular without a nice, fat contract for recording and touring, then God help you, because until you do there really isn't any other source of income when free copies of your material is all over Napster and Gnutella except for local gigs (which pay for meals, and that's about it).
This is the part that you will probably disagree with, regardless of what I say, but I hope you will at least consider my words, harsh as they may be. Although it may not agree with you, popular music is popular for a reason. Yes, the Major Labels do play a part in that popularity, but for the most part, their popularity is based on the fact that they are good. Take the Major Labels out of the picture, and you will lose what Bias is left.
The voluntary "pay for download and support" system is completely bunk. Two reasons: Think about how many times a day you listen to music and think, "Wow, this really touched me, I think I'll go look up the artist and give them financial support!" Heh. Just thinking about basic human nature makes me laugh at that thought. The other reason? Why pay for something when you can get it for free? Let's take the example of mIRC, a program that's used by millions and has the same voluntary pay-for-support deal. For all the people that have downloaded it, the number of people that have actually paid is a tiny percentage. It's not like mIRC isn't a useful program - it's just basic human nature again. And unlike programmers, who could use mIRC to land a nice cushy corporate job, musicians are pretty much SOL in the "other jobs" department. They write and play music, and, well, uh, they write and play music. And do a lot of waiting tables on the side.
As far as people paying for the music because they like the artist, maybe the problem is more that there is no decent accepted method to pay those artist. $20 is too much, and of that very little is getting to the artist. If the cost is reasonable, people will pay it. Let's take WinAMP as an example (I realize it's not music, but that there are no good musical examples is part of the point I am making). WinAMP was distibuted as Freeware origianlly. Eventually, they began distributing it as Shareware, but fully functional. People had absolutely nothing to gain frm registering WinAMP. Nothing. I know this because I registered my copy, back when it was around version 2.04, and I got nothing for doing so, nor did I expect too, I just didn't want to see development of a product I liked cease to exist. A lot of other people did the same. Did the gang from Nullsoft go out of business or get driven to the streets? No. They're still pushing out software, and still distributing it freely, and still getting paid. BTW, if Mirc is doing so bad, why are there new releases of that still coming out as well?
Online distribution is not the end of the music industry as we know it - it is the end of the music profession as we know it. We're going to end up with 10-20 superpopular, hypermarketed acts that really have nothing to do with creative talent, and then there's going to be a sharp dropoff to the thousands of garage bands with the talent who don't have the capital to produce a great album, don't ever make the scene, and don't make a dime. The price of commercialization.
The price of commercialization is what we're paying now, and the 10-20 superpop bands you describe are the ones in heavy rotation on your radio now. With the dawn of free music, what you're more likely going to see, is an increase in the quality of music, and bands or individuals that rival the quality of classical music long gone, with modern sounds. No doubt bands like this exist now, and have conflicting morals with the likes of the Major Labels, and as such the Labels have no use for them. Instead, with the Labels out of the way, music will be come more spread by use of the internet, more popular by word of mouth, and musicians well paid for performances by the origianl artist, and commisioned to write music for what ever purposes. It will return to the way it was, but better.
It seems to me that the issue here is that in the past, communications were not as good, so when a person came up with a good idea, he was able in most cases to retain security of his ideas. Now that communications are being measured on a global scale and an instantaneous speed, that ability to control ideas is deteriorating. Thus, it is much more difficult to assess those exclusive rights, because just as soon as they become public, they spread instantaneously and with no control on the part of the supposed right-holder.
Dead on, and the fact is that ultimately, there will be no way to control the spread of not only ideas, but all information, which is exactly why people should instead look to profitting from the implementation of ideas, rather than just getting paid for the ideas themselves.
This problem hits right at the foundations of the line of thinking that leads to copyright and patent law. We would be well advised to do one of two things (there may be others): A) Determine a technological solution to the problem, such as a way to distribute musiic that will allow the rights to be maintained, or
There is no technological solution. As has been proven time and again, and should really be obvious, If I can hear it, I can record it. Worse, if I can here it via my PC, then I can record it as perfectly as I am hearing it.
B) Throw out the whole system of copyrights/patents optionally coming up with some other way of granting the same rights to the thinker/inventor/artist etc.
doesn't that seem a little altruistic? let's think of some other reasons someone might share an idea:
Excellent points as well (and great ideas!). I've been trying hard to stay away from the negative here, and even harder not to sound like a zealot (though I suspect it may be too late for that).
We are all aware that our fellow men are great and moral people.
Furthermore, I suspect that any Individual who would come up with an original, beneficial idea would not hold it back, even if just in general discussion with his friends and peers. And likely that one who would, probably does not posess as great an idea as he may believe.
Jefferson was rationalizing the US not observing British IP rights. All sorts of British IP was being pirated (to use that annoying word) at the time. The British weren't too happy. But heck, the US was at war with Britain at the time, so you wouldn't expect Jefferson to say anything different. You can bet if Jefferson were concerned about some country profiting from American ideas, the commentary would be different.
Wow, is this a troll?
The letter does not say anything about the British, and it was written in 1813, more than 35 years after the U.S. had formed as our own seperate nation, and 30 years after the war with the Revolutionary War with the British came to an end.
BTW, I also disagree with your interpretation. A song is a lot more than an idea. Perhaps an IDEA for a song can't be protected, but I think a song can. When you make music you put physical and unique individual effort into it, and also bear an economic burden. I think this serves to make a recording a bit more "concrete" than just an abstract idea. After all, people don't go about just thinking up ideas for songs and selling those ideas. They sell the music that they took effort to play.
This is an excellent point, but I would like to first refer to this post.
Additionally, I believe that a song is more of an extension of an Idea. When you compose a song, you are thinking... thinking up lyrics, thinking up the music to accompany them, etc. The finished product is a thought, whether it be committed to paper or just in your head, it is basically the same as an Idea, in that it is an intangible object, sprung forth from your mind.
Oh the other hand, the fruit of that Idea is a Performance. No doubt should an artist be able to collect a payment for a performance. But to have that performance recorded, and to then laze about and expect that single performance to pay off forever?
This is why many/.ers have been suggesting that artists should be paid for live concerts, appearing on television shows, or even MTV. They should absolutely be paid for their performances, and have the right to demand a price before performing, and the right to refuse if that performance is not met. But they should not be able to collect beyond that price, any more than you have to pay the roofer of your house for everytime it rains and you don't get wet in your bed.
It's a nit-pick, but I think that statement mischaracterizes Jefferson's words. Jefferson was saying that there is no natural property right inherent to the creation of work.
We shall have to agree to disagree here. I see your point, but I don't believe that my statement was incorrect.
What the post omits is Jefferson's statement that there is an artificial property right created by men. Jefferson even seems resigned to the concept as an inheritence from British law. That he considers the right artificial does not automatically mean the right has no merit.
Indeed, but omitted on purpose. I do not think it was Jeffersons intent to support that artificial property right, so much as to point out that it is in fact, 'artificial'. A right assumed by greedy men, who are concerned more with their own well being than that of their communities at large, and humankind as a whole.
In fact, further prove your point, in the same letter Jefferson admits to paying the patent price on a grain elevator, though he thought it bogus, rather than to cause trouble, and approached the patent holder and his lawyers about it after the fact.
Again, it's inclusion in the text of the Constitution implies the framers thought it was a good idea.
Also, let us remember that Jefferson did not have final authority on what went in the constitution, and that not everything in the constitution is necessarily right, just because most of it is. Our founding fathers, admirable and wise though they were, were still human, and prone to such conclusion. The Constitution also allowed for Slavery until the addition of the 13th amendment in 1865.
Indeed, it is likely that "arrogant" is too strong a word, but it is the only word I know of that properly conveys my point.
The point that I believe Jefferson is trying to make is that the value of Intelectual Property cannot be quantified in the same way as Physical Property is.
If I give my house to another person, I can no longer occupy that house, therefore it is within my rights to demand a payment, of the house's value to me.
When I write a song, and give it to another person, I stand to lose absolutely nothing. The song is still with me, except that now that person has the song also. Therefore it is only fair that I demand payment, of the song's value to them, and unfortunately, only they are able to say what that value is. More unfortunately, they themselves cannot determine the value of that song to themselves, without recieving it first.
That may sound a bit unfair, but consider the what road the alternative leads to.
The reason that the Major Labels (in the case of music) have been able to profit for so long despite these facts, is because of the lack of technology, that did not allow copies to be inexpensively made, of decent quality. But with new technologies emerging constantly, one can assume that one day, you will be able to record everything that one hears, as perfectly as it was heard the first time. What then?
Do you really want to allow Government (I'm sure that not only would they desire the job, but several individuals would scream for it to be done) to screen everything that you hear, to determine whether or not you have the right to hear it, or should be billed for it? And if you refuse to pay, will they be allowed to erase it? And do you really trust anyone other than yourself to determine what you can legitimately remember and what you can't?
How about to recoup the time and effort required to produce or write the thing in the first place?
Did you not read the sentence to which you replied?
It is arrogant of you to assume that the thing you wrote is of any value that someone should reimburse you for it.
If it is, they will. Maybe not everyone, it is certain that some will not, even though they derive value from the work. However, there will be those that see that same value and compensate you as such, if the value is there.
If not, you may take it as a sign that you are doing the wrong things with your 'time and effort'.
So i just don't tell anyone. Once I die, the idea goes along, and no one gained.
This is your right, as your Idea is yours until you share it. However, you still make the error of arrogance in thinking that noone else but you alone has thought of it. Another thing that history has shown us is that ideas tend to come to multiple men, completely unrelated, at about the same time, and it is generally the first to either implement it, or share it with another to implement, that prospers from whatever reward may accompany it. It happens all the time, how many times have you heard say someone say, "I was thinking about doing that long before they did.", and more importantly, how are they doing now?
You may not make any money by sharing your idea, but you are guaranteed not to by keeping it to yourself.
Purity and reality often clash. Reality usually wins.
This is generally true, and I would be hard pressed to argue, but the reality in this situation is that if your Idea is of value, someone else will think of it, and eventually someone with the morals to share it, if it betters mankind.
From the immortal words of one of our founding fathers, who said it better than I possibly can.
In a letter to Isaac McPherson, on August 13th, 1813, Thomas Jefferson writes: ... It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until wecopied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices. ...
In other words, if I write a song, and it is recorded, I no longer have control over the spread of said song, and my song must stand on it's own value. If people like my song, and they like it a lot, then those people have the choice to make payment to me, not necessarily for the song itself, but as an encouragement to produce more songs.
However, it would be arrogant of me to assume that anything is owed me. How can I charge a price for something that no longer costs me anything? And how do I determine a price to charge another man for something that holds no value to him until it is given to him, especially when it may be of no value?
This stands as well in the concept of Patents on Ideas vs. Inventions (The implementation of Ideas), which was the original subject of this letter.
That we are revisiting problems that existed 200 years ago, is proof that the man who holds no value in history is doomed to repeat it.
But not if the law explicitly enumerates the key length. And it's not one of those things that can be conveniently indexed against inflation, for example.
True enough, and that would just be another example of Good Idea, Bad Implementation.
Hopefully though, the law is intended for it's stated purpose, and not just another way for Big Brother to destroy anonymity by tracking people after requiring them to use signatures.
Here's the offical House Committee on Commerce News Release, and the Conference Report (.pdf), anyone got a link to the bill in question, "S.761"? It's strangely missing from the site (or at least not anywhere I can find it), even though the ConfRep is intended to accompany it.
...is that unlike "Titanic" (which you are all free to like, but I am sick of hearing about) everyone agreed that it sucked, therefore we will not have to listen to people going on and on about it, 6 months after the fact.
At least I thought, until the graet Katz in his ever flowing wisdom decided to plague us with it yet again.
By the time they've decided on this, we'll have computers fast enough to factor the primes, crack the keys, and render this technology useless.
I'm sure that this was not the point of your post, but unless the actual algorithm is broken (which means discovering the true nature of primes, or at the very least a solution to factoring numbers easily, which is closely related) there is no real danger here.
If the computers are that fast, then they will also be fast enough to compute larger keys at a usable speed.
The purpose of Solitaire used to transfer messages between prisoners of war in hostile environments, however Bruse Schneir did not travel back in time and tell them how to do it.
Schneir designed it specifically for the book. Try these links:
In case anyone hasn't read "Cryptonomicon" yet (why not?!?), go check out the excerpt. Bet it hooks you.
This is truly a scifi story for geeks... What other tale in the world has had it's own Encryption Algorithym created just to lend plausability to the story?
Stephenson has been criticized by some for getting to deep into the trivial details in his fiction, but personally that's why I read it.
Not that we didn't already know it, it's been written in probably close to 50% of the posts, but it's too damned funny to see it written in a government document of law. From the ruling:
Slashdot Mirror
For instance, Gender can be used for in-game advantages -- some Males may hesitate to shoot a female,
A weakness, they deserve to die. If you can't shoot a female model in Quake, you're an idiot.
others become more hostile if killed by a female.
A weakness, they deserve to die. Focus your rage on them, and forget about me, your mistake.
Females may pretend to be male to avoid being hit on or harassed,
A weakness, they deserve to die. Try shooting some one. It'll make you feel better.
and both sexes may pretend to be opposite genders for role-playing
A weakness, they deserve to die. Go play Ultima or some crap.
or exploration reasons.
A weakne... HUH?!?
This would have no effect on the Gamers I know, and no realy social implications in any of the games I've played. I don't check out the bods on Female Quakers, I frag em.
As Cartman put it... "If a girl tried something like that with me, I'd be like hey, get your bitch ass back in the kitchen, and make me some pie"
No offense to the RL Females, of course.
-Tommy
Why the hell would I want to get myself scanned? I never see my self when I'm playing, but if I could make everyone else look like my boss, I can garauntee an increase in my Frag Count.
-Tommy
I also, have appreciated your thoughts on this matter. It has given me much to think about as well. However, I am growing a bit fatigued with this subject, as it often feels like a lost cause, and as such this will be my final post on the matter under this aticle. Rest assured I will read any responses.
I will finish with this though. I am not saying it is wrong to profit from software, just that it needs to be done in a different way than Software Mon^H^H^HCorporations are doing today.
Since M$ is the worst case of this, and has been our example this far, let me ask you a question. Is a word processing package really worth more to you than the Operating System itself? M$ seems to think so. In many stores, It costs more to buy M$ Office 2000 (~$527.36) than it does to buy M$ Windows 2000 (~$276.97).
This is not reasonable, and is IMHO the actual reason that M$ products are so widely pirated, not the other way around as they claim(M$ says that their prices are driven high to recoup the cost of piracy, they charge the good guys for the actions of the bad).
Now assume they charged a reasonable price for MS Word. I think $20 is reasonable, others may not, but given the choice between buying a copy of software from the source, for a reasonable price, or getting a free copy, which I have no gaurantee will be virus free, fully functional, etc., I'll fork over the $20, but M$ better be ready to hold themselves responsible for any viruses, missing features that are advertised to be in the product, etc.
I realize, of course, that this may not be a reasonable business model, but I can't help but wonder if they wouldn't sell 30 times more copies (the amount necessary to come in around the same profit range) at a reasonable price than they do now, especially with the Market Share that they posess.
My closing point is this, there is _NO_ way to fully prevent piracy. If I can hear it on my computer, I can record it and play it back. If I can make it run even once on my computer, I can make it run a second time. If I can get it in a digital format, I can duplicate it. Why waste so much money chasing a ghost? Not to mention the cost to taxpayers to pursue these cases. It doesn't matter where one stands on IP, trying to enforce it is a waste of time and money, as well as a bane on progress, so find a different way to profit from the same Ideas. Maybe you won't profit as much, but does M$ really deserve that much money? Is a word processor more important to you than food? I haven't seen any billionaire farmers in the news lately, and even the laziest farmers work as hard and as long hours as most programmers proclaim to, just to be able to feed and house their families.
-Tommy
Thanks, I do seem to recall this after reading your post.
Any idea how it matters where corporations are concerned, which are not necessarily either?
-Tommy
Isn't evidence that is illegally obtained, not valid for use in a court of law?
-Tommy
I think this is the article you asked my opinion on? If not, here is my opinion anyhow. Take it with a grain of salt, and let me apologize for the length of this post in advance.
I agree, except on the software part. Books, magazines, music, movie etc help people learn (besides entertain), and apply the ideas they learn as they like, without charges. I think of most software as a tool. I don't expect to be able to borrow it out of the library and keep a copy forever, the same way I don't expect to borrow a bulldozer and keep it forever.
The perception of Software as a tool is one that the Software Industry has been pushing for a very long time now. The truth is Knowledge in general is a tool. Software is just a different method of recording a set of instructions. The computer interpretting those instructions is the tool.
An odd example: If I wrote a flowchart to show the way that _I_ made a peanut butter and jelly sandwich (I did this once as a kid!), and attempted to sue all the kids in the world who told their parents they wanted theirs made the same way(with potato chips in them!), everyone would agree that I was nuts. What if I had actually thought of this first (I admit I pirated the idea from the little girl next to me), and had actually patented it? You'd still think I was nuts, and anyone who wanted to put potato chips on their PB&J would continue to do so anyway.
Ok, fine, I lost that lawsuit. I'm gonna go sue the Producers of the movie that popularized my idea without giving me my royalties, and the authors of the 1000 or so cookbooks, that rudely took my flowchart and made recipes out of it.
Still think it's absurd? Yeah, because it is.
Even if I legitimately thought of the idea first.
Even if I was legitimately the first to do it.
Even if I had spent 100 hours of my own time, and bought 500 loaves of bread and 50 jars of PB&J, most people would think I was nuts to demand payment of them, just because they built their sandwiches the same way.
You could use similar logic to argue against letting people borrow books, magazines, etc, but I think there's a difference. Software, like MS Word doesn't help you learn. You don't really need MS Word. There's nothing you can do with MS Word that you can basically do without it.
But there is still a way to profit off of it, without directly selling it. If you (as a company) spend time to develop a product, then nobody is going to know that product better than you, and generally they are going to come to you for training and support for that product. Additionally, when that product doesn't do exactly what they want, but damn close, they're going to pay you money to figure out how to make that product do what they want. They may even pay you money to teach them how to make that product do what they want. Example: OpenNMS.
Another possibility is that you develop software that absolutely kick ass, everybody loves it, and you give it away for free, under a fully functional, but request (not demand) payment, "If you want to see it get better, send me money so I can keep making it". See WinAMP.
Or best of all, do it because it's what you love to do, and because you believe it should be done, and because you want to contribute to the world you live in. Package it with cool and unique but cheap stuff (Stickers), sell T-Shirts, and give recognition to the individuals or companies that support your efforts. I bought a copy of OpenBSD just to have a CD with a Pufferfish on it.
Books contain ideas that you can't expect to get on your own. I'm at a loss to explain it better. One way to look at is that books impart knowledge, and software and equipment are facilitators.
As I said computers are the tool, software just the instructions to make them work. If anybody should be funding software development, it's the computer manufacturers who are selling you a tool, and making you buy the manual from someone else.
It did actually used to be this way, I might add, before M$. Apple computers came with Apple's OSs on them(and still do). Mainframes with Unix. IBMs with IBM-DOS. However, once people started buying M$ to replace the installed OSs, the computer manufacturers eventually began selling computers without OSs. Do you think they removed the cost associated with the development of the software?
With those books, you can obtain the knowledge to build the software and equipment you think you need.
We as a society should be supporting the growth of that society, not reinventing the wheel, if it has already been done, the knowledge that you need to do it again should be freely available, I think that software falls into the category of this Knowledge. Building equipment, a physical undertaking is different.
Also, I think software in libraries is a good idea if the idea is for trial use, use the software until you return it. Pay for it afterwards.
Why pay for it afterwards? You haven't cost anybody any money by not paying for it. Instead, pay a company to better it, something they may not be able to do without the necessary funding.
Open Source is nice, but there's a lot of other nice software we wouldn't have because it takes too much time and skill to produce for free.
Free is relative. If computer manufacturers or corporations were paying to have it developed to begin with (for the purposes of their own profits), then it would already be paid for.
Copy machines in libraries is a good point though, and has significance to the software industry. Even though you can copy an entire book in the library, people still buy books. Though, sometimes it is just as expensive to photocopy a book, not to mention it's time consuming.
Indeed, I would buy a copy of an Operating System from the company that created it, if that cost was fair, and they were only profitting minorly from the cost of distribution.
Lasty, I should mention I'm a bit of a hypocrite because I use some pirated software. Almost all the software I use often (once a month or more), I buy, if it's not free that is. I'm not sure if this is good or bad, but, for instance, I don't want to pay $100+ bucks for MS Word, when I use it rarely to view and lightly edit a Word file someone sent me in an email. Also, I have no stolen software that I would buy to use if I wasn't able to steal it.
Excactly the point of this whole diatribe. Software is not priced fairly. Value is a relative thing, and one thing may have many different values to many different people. Perhaps if the software industry were to open it's eyes and see this, and build a more morally correct business model, then we wouldn't have the problems that we face now.
-Tommy
Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until wecopied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.
Additionally, you stated:
This means society may give you the right to sell your song, and have people to buy your song (and thus have you profit from it) as an encouragement to you to write more songs.
And true, Jefferson was speaking that society may grant you such privilege, however, it seems obvious to me that he disdains of such privileges. As you were quick to point out later, society may grant a lot of rights, such as the right to own another man in the case of Slavery. This does not make society correct or moral, it just makes the point that society has power.
The only other thing in your post that I feel compelled to comment on is this, where you wrote:
A thing has no value if it costs nothing, either in time, space, or material goods to reproduce. Unfortunately, even ideas take some time, and if they are recorded, take space and material goods to reproduce. Further, any idea of merit probably took a master artist a non-trivial amount of time to create. Perhaps some artists feel the reward of creation is it's own payment--but most people live in the real world, and the time it took them to create their idea was time they don't have to spend to make money to put food on their table or a roof over their head.
Value is a relative thing, and just because you hold value in something whether it be tangible or not, does not mean I hold that same value for it. And yes, it would be arrogant of you to assume that it does. What's more, I cannot be held responsible for your time and efforts, unless I have had some direct impact on them, but when you spend your time to write a song, that I did not ask you to write, did not want you to write, and did not enjoy when you were finished writing, I do not feel compelled to reimburse you for your time. It was a choice that you have made to spend doing as you wished, and any loss of income, or inability to support your family that results from such actions, are your responsibility, not mine.
-Tommy
And yes, the ideas about patents and copyright law did in fact carry over from Enbland as well, and were the subject of much debate. But I do not believe it was Jefferson's belief that patents should not be observed to Brits, and maintained the other way round, as the AC implied.
-Tommy
Sorry, I was not trying to belittle the time and effort that many creative musicians put into making there music, I was just trying to keep the discussion simple. However, my views are still the same.
As a studio musician, I know something of the costs it takes to produce an album, with or without any kind of backing. Cost of renting studio time (which for an album runs anywhere from $1000 to over a $1 million for a decent studio and enough time to record and work), instruments (which are damn pricey), audio equipment (musicians have their favorite mics, cables, adapters, effects pedals) and not to mention the media such as ADAT which is used at the studio to capture the music.
Do I have an explicit right to make money off of my investment and effort? No.
Do I have a right to prevent others from stealing my creation and profiting off of my investment and effort? Yes.
Yes, you do, unfortunately the simple fact is that the only reliable method that you have to do this, is to not release it at all. It may not seem right, it may not even be right (altough I think that further down the line, we as a society will see that the free sharing of information is best for society as a whole), but it is a fact.
The government has nothing to do with this issue - bringing it up is nothing but a red herring.
A little extreme? Maybe, but not quite a red herring. I was just trying to point out that government involvement on a VERY detailed level, is the only way to enforce your copyrights. And it is the level of this involvement that is detrimental to us all.
IP copyright issues are disturbingly similar to patents - if anyone can simply use and enjoy my work without any form of mandatory reinbursement that I can set, then my incentive for creating work is destroyed.
There was a time, long ago, when there were no copyright laws. Strangely though, we have some incredibly beutiful music, and famous musicians from those time periods. Bards like Shakespere, Classical Composers like Beethoven, Mozart, Rachmoninav, and because they were good they were hired by the rich to perfom and occasionally commisioned to compose new music for a living. Strangely enough, I do not believe that their motives were of a monetarial nature, and although their works were used and even "stolen" by other performers, they were not driven to living on the streets, because they were able to demand a higher price for their performances, being the original artists.
Musicians are caught between a rock and greed with internet distribution - on mp3.com, for instance, how many thousands of bands exist that haven't made more than $5 for every band that makes a decent living?
How many of them are good is more the question. How many of the bands on mp3.com deserve $5? And who decides whether they do or not?
The alternative to that is to become popular (which in 99% of cases takes a recording label's marketing power) and then watch as millions of people simply make a "loaned" copy from a friend and "forget" to pay for the music. And if you're popular without a nice, fat contract for recording and touring, then God help you, because until you do there really isn't any other source of income when free copies of your material is all over Napster and Gnutella except for local gigs (which pay for meals, and that's about it).
This is the part that you will probably disagree with, regardless of what I say, but I hope you will at least consider my words, harsh as they may be. Although it may not agree with you, popular music is popular for a reason. Yes, the Major Labels do play a part in that popularity, but for the most part, their popularity is based on the fact that they are good. Take the Major Labels out of the picture, and you will lose what Bias is left.
The voluntary "pay for download and support" system is completely bunk. Two reasons:
Think about how many times a day you listen to music and think, "Wow, this really touched me, I think I'll go look up the artist and give them financial support!" Heh. Just thinking about basic human nature makes me laugh at that thought.
The other reason? Why pay for something when you can get it for free? Let's take the example of mIRC, a program that's used by millions and has the same voluntary pay-for-support deal. For all the people that have downloaded it, the number of people that have actually paid is a tiny percentage. It's not like mIRC isn't a useful program - it's just basic human nature again. And unlike programmers, who could use mIRC to land a nice cushy corporate job, musicians are pretty much SOL in the "other jobs" department. They write and play music, and, well, uh, they write and play music. And do a lot of waiting tables on the side.
As far as people paying for the music because they like the artist, maybe the problem is more that there is no decent accepted method to pay those artist. $20 is too much, and of that very little is getting to the artist. If the cost is reasonable, people will pay it. Let's take WinAMP as an example (I realize it's not music, but that there are no good musical examples is part of the point I am making). WinAMP was distibuted as Freeware origianlly. Eventually, they began distributing it as Shareware, but fully functional. People had absolutely nothing to gain frm registering WinAMP. Nothing. I know this because I registered my copy, back when it was around version 2.04, and I got nothing for doing so, nor did I expect too, I just didn't want to see development of a product I liked cease to exist. A lot of other people did the same. Did the gang from Nullsoft go out of business or get driven to the streets? No. They're still pushing out software, and still distributing it freely, and still getting paid. BTW, if Mirc is doing so bad, why are there new releases of that still coming out as well?
Online distribution is not the end of the music industry as we know it - it is the end of the music profession as we know it. We're going to end up with 10-20 superpopular, hypermarketed acts that really have nothing to do with creative talent, and then there's going to be a sharp dropoff to the thousands of garage bands with the talent who don't have the capital to produce a great album, don't ever make the scene, and don't make a dime. The price of commercialization.
The price of commercialization is what we're paying now, and the 10-20 superpop bands you describe are the ones in heavy rotation on your radio now. With the dawn of free music, what you're more likely going to see, is an increase in the quality of music, and bands or individuals that rival the quality of classical music long gone, with modern sounds. No doubt bands like this exist now, and have conflicting morals with the likes of the Major Labels, and as such the Labels have no use for them. Instead, with the Labels out of the way, music will be come more spread by use of the internet, more popular by word of mouth, and musicians well paid for performances by the origianl artist, and commisioned to write music for what ever purposes. It will return to the way it was, but better.
But that's just my opinion.
-Tommy
Dead on, and the fact is that ultimately, there will be no way to control the spread of not only ideas, but all information, which is exactly why people should instead look to profitting from the implementation of ideas, rather than just getting paid for the ideas themselves.
This problem hits right at the foundations of the line of thinking that leads to copyright and patent law. We would be well advised to do one of two things (there may be others):
A) Determine a technological solution to the problem, such as a way to distribute musiic that will allow the rights to be maintained, or
There is no technological solution. As has been proven time and again, and should really be obvious, If I can hear it, I can record it. Worse, if I can here it via my PC, then I can record it as perfectly as I am hearing it.
B) Throw out the whole system of copyrights/patents optionally coming up with some other way of granting the same rights to the thinker/inventor/artist etc.
Indeed.
-Tommy
Excellent points as well (and great ideas!). I've been trying hard to stay away from the negative here, and even harder not to sound like a zealot (though I suspect it may be too late for that).
We are all aware that our fellow men are great and moral people.
Furthermore, I suspect that any Individual who would come up with an original, beneficial idea would not hold it back, even if just in general discussion with his friends and peers. And likely that one who would, probably does not posess as great an idea as he may believe.
-Tommy
Wow, is this a troll?
The letter does not say anything about the British, and it was written in 1813, more than 35 years after the U.S. had formed as our own seperate nation, and 30 years after the war with the Revolutionary War with the British came to an end.
-Tommy
This is an excellent point, but I would like to first refer to this post.
Additionally, I believe that a song is more of an extension of an Idea. When you compose a song, you are thinking... thinking up lyrics, thinking up the music to accompany them, etc. The finished product is a thought, whether it be committed to paper or just in your head, it is basically the same as an Idea, in that it is an intangible object, sprung forth from your mind.
Oh the other hand, the fruit of that Idea is a Performance. No doubt should an artist be able to collect a payment for a performance. But to have that performance recorded, and to then laze about and expect that single performance to pay off forever?
This is why many /.ers have been suggesting that artists should be paid for live concerts, appearing on television shows, or even MTV. They should absolutely be paid for their performances, and have the right to demand a price before performing, and the right to refuse if that performance is not met. But they should not be able to collect beyond that price, any more than you have to pay the roofer of your house for everytime it rains and you don't get wet in your bed.
-Tommy
We shall have to agree to disagree here. I see your point, but I don't believe that my statement was incorrect.
What the post omits is Jefferson's statement that there is an artificial property right created by men. Jefferson even seems resigned to the concept as an inheritence from British law. That he considers the right artificial does not automatically mean the right has no merit.
Indeed, but omitted on purpose. I do not think it was Jeffersons intent to support that artificial property right, so much as to point out that it is in fact, 'artificial'. A right assumed by greedy men, who are concerned more with their own well being than that of their communities at large, and humankind as a whole.
In fact, further prove your point, in the same letter Jefferson admits to paying the patent price on a grain elevator, though he thought it bogus, rather than to cause trouble, and approached the patent holder and his lawyers about it after the fact.
Again, it's inclusion in the text of the Constitution implies the framers thought it was a good idea.
Also, let us remember that Jefferson did not have final authority on what went in the constitution, and that not everything in the constitution is necessarily right, just because most of it is. Our founding fathers, admirable and wise though they were, were still human, and prone to such conclusion. The Constitution also allowed for Slavery until the addition of the 13th amendment in 1865.
-Tommy
The point that I believe Jefferson is trying to make is that the value of Intelectual Property cannot be quantified in the same way as Physical Property is.
If I give my house to another person, I can no longer occupy that house, therefore it is within my rights to demand a payment, of the house's value to me.
When I write a song, and give it to another person, I stand to lose absolutely nothing. The song is still with me, except that now that person has the song also. Therefore it is only fair that I demand payment, of the song's value to them, and unfortunately, only they are able to say what that value is. More unfortunately, they themselves cannot determine the value of that song to themselves, without recieving it first.
That may sound a bit unfair, but consider the what road the alternative leads to.
The reason that the Major Labels (in the case of music) have been able to profit for so long despite these facts, is because of the lack of technology, that did not allow copies to be inexpensively made, of decent quality. But with new technologies emerging constantly, one can assume that one day, you will be able to record everything that one hears, as perfectly as it was heard the first time. What then?
Do you really want to allow Government (I'm sure that not only would they desire the job, but several individuals would scream for it to be done) to screen everything that you hear, to determine whether or not you have the right to hear it, or should be billed for it? And if you refuse to pay, will they be allowed to erase it? And do you really trust anyone other than yourself to determine what you can legitimately remember and what you can't?
I for one don't.
-Tommy
-Tommy
Did you not read the sentence to which you replied?
It is arrogant of you to assume that the thing you wrote is of any value that someone should reimburse you for it.
If it is, they will. Maybe not everyone, it is certain that some will not, even though they derive value from the work. However, there will be those that see that same value and compensate you as such, if the value is there.
If not, you may take it as a sign that you are doing the wrong things with your 'time and effort'.
-Tommy
This is your right, as your Idea is yours until you share it. However, you still make the error of arrogance in thinking that noone else but you alone has thought of it. Another thing that history has shown us is that ideas tend to come to multiple men, completely unrelated, at about the same time, and it is generally the first to either implement it, or share it with another to implement, that prospers from whatever reward may accompany it. It happens all the time, how many times have you heard say someone say, "I was thinking about doing that long before they did.", and more importantly, how are they doing now?
You may not make any money by sharing your idea, but you are guaranteed not to by keeping it to yourself.
Purity and reality often clash. Reality usually wins.
This is generally true, and I would be hard pressed to argue, but the reality in this situation is that if your Idea is of value, someone else will think of it, and eventually someone with the morals to share it, if it betters mankind.
-Tommy
In a letter to Isaac McPherson, on August 13th, 1813, Thomas Jefferson writes:
...
It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until wecopied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.
...
In other words, if I write a song, and it is recorded, I no longer have control over the spread of said song, and my song must stand on it's own value. If people like my song, and they like it a lot, then those people have the choice to make payment to me, not necessarily for the song itself, but as an encouragement to produce more songs.
However, it would be arrogant of me to assume that anything is owed me. How can I charge a price for something that no longer costs me anything? And how do I determine a price to charge another man for something that holds no value to him until it is given to him, especially when it may be of no value?
This stands as well in the concept of Patents on Ideas vs. Inventions (The implementation of Ideas), which was the original subject of this letter.
That we are revisiting problems that existed 200 years ago, is proof that the man who holds no value in history is doomed to repeat it.
-Tommy
True enough, and that would just be another example of Good Idea, Bad Implementation.
Hopefully though, the law is intended for it's stated purpose, and not just another way for Big Brother to destroy anonymity by tracking people after requiring them to use signatures.
Here's the offical House Committee on Commerce News Release, and the Conference Report (.pdf), anyone got a link to the bill in question, "S.761"? It's strangely missing from the site (or at least not anywhere I can find it), even though the ConfRep is intended to accompany it.
-Tommy
At least I thought, until the graet Katz in his ever flowing wisdom decided to plague us with it yet again.
-Tommy
I'm sure that this was not the point of your post, but unless the actual algorithm is broken (which means discovering the true nature of primes, or at the very least a solution to factoring numbers easily, which is closely related) there is no real danger here.
If the computers are that fast, then they will also be fast enough to compute larger keys at a usable speed.
-Tommy
The purpose of Solitaire used to transfer messages between prisoners of war in hostile environments, however Bruse Schneir did not travel back in time and tell them how to do it.
Schneir designed it specifically for the book. Try these links:
The original link to Counterpane
Problems with Bruce Schneier's "Solitaire"
Cryptography and PGP References
And a web based implementation of Solitaire
-Tommy
P.S. Fatland looks interesting, just ordered it.
This is truly a scifi story for geeks... What other tale in the world has had it's own Encryption Algorithym created just to lend plausability to the story?
Stephenson has been criticized by some for getting to deep into the trivial details in his fiction, but personally that's why I read it.
-Tommy
P.S. It's good to see this story is back.
Microsoft has proved untrustworthy in the past.
Think the judge has been reading /.?
-Tommy