Do you think you could do it for cheaper than $500/article if you were doing 40,000 articles per year? Are there any economies of scale to be used?
If he were really big, think he could charge money to submittors? If it wouldn't be a very large sum compared to the cost of the research, then this could be considered a research expense. It's the cost of auditing. There'd have to be some system that made it so the auditors would have no reward for accepting papers...
He has another way to achieve notoriety. If he can grow his lay-readership bigger than the more obscure journals, he might be able to draw submissions away from them. People doing library research will still have access to the articles if he gets them in the major indexes. He wouldn't have to focus on a specific genre of scientific inquiry, and he doesn't have a limit on the volume he could publish. His initial competitors for paper submittal wouldn't be Psychology, or even Linguistics. It would be the second-place journals that have impeccable but not groundbreaking research. I'm sure there are thousands of these journals. And I'm sure they sometimes have to turn down stories simply to conserve space.
By aiming for more obscure subjects, he could become a clearinghouse for all types of research, so long as it is perfectly rigorous. Eventually he might be able to draw submissions from the massive journals just because the researchers want their papers to be more available.
Mostly because AI is generally an argument topic. It'd be like having an "Evolution" topic. Whenever anyone brings up AI, you get twenty highly rated posts talking about "Why don't the researchers see that AI would be easy if only they [insert poorly thought-out idea here]". And then you get like three voices of reason explaining why none of this is groundbreaking.
Er... I just made your point. If we had an A.I. topic, then everyone with my complaint could filter out the flames....
I guess I'm just trying to say there shouldn't necessarily be *more* AI stories.
It's ridiculous to consider physical actions as speech? Are you kidding? The way we interface with the world is through "physical actions." Speech is a physical action for crying out loud.
Speech should be protected but not... typing? Speech should be protected but not... sign language?
If you're free to tell your neighbor that you think President Clinton was a crook, but you can be arrested for say... sending your neighbor an email that says you think President Clinton was a crook, I'm sure you'd agree the government had overstepped. If you don't, then sure, your position is self-consistent. If you're trying to say that speech should be protected, but not communication in general, and you still want to be able to communicate freely, your position is untenable.
And if you're going to say that communication should be protected, but not expression... fine... tell me how you detect the difference. If burning a flag isn't an excellent way to communicate that you are upset with the government, I don't know what is.
Apple doesn't have a problem with un-free software.
They've licensed freunhoffer(sp?) code for use in iTunes, if I understand correctly. This was back when some people felt like Ogg wasn't as good a codec, but still: Apple can afford to use proprietary algorithms.
And anyway. It would have cost them much much more to make an iPod that supported Ogg anyway. Sure, there are people working on Ogg codec hardware... but you can't buy it from TI today.
Microsoft is free to embrace and extend in any case. They can make a zeroconf implementation that only kindof works with or without Apple's code. Apple might want to consider only licensing the "Rendezvous" trademark to companies with an implementation that they like.
Since Apple simply wants to speed adoption of this technology by *everybody*, then a BSD license or even placing the software in the public domain would be to their best advantage.
Apple might want to make some compromise between fastest-possible-adoption and controlling-intellectual-property. But all the control in the world won't let them control zeroconf. Hopefully they'll try to guarantee interoperability with the "Rendezvous" trademark/logo.
Yes. Other posters have pointed out my error. I have replied to them that it does not matter:
3. Transfer. You may not rent, lease, lend or sublicense the Apple Software. You may, however, make a one-time permanent transfer of all of your license rights to the Apple Software to another party, provided that: (a) the transfer must include all of the Apple Software, including all its component parts, original media, printed materials and this License; (b) you do not retain any copies of the Apple Software, full or partial, including copies stored on a computer or other storage device; and (c) the party receiving the Apple Software reads and agrees to accept the terms and conditions of this License.
This means that you can sell your iDVD software to a third party, that owns no Apple SuperDrive. They should be able to use the software however they like. Same for users that have both an internal and an external DVD burner.
Yeah, that would be totally messed up of OWC. Zettabyte was doing that, and Apple stopped them. We didn't get the legal specifics in that case either.
The reason that would be messed up of OWC, however, would be that they would have to distribute unlicensed copies of iDVD. If OWC can build a SuperDrive Macintosh for cheaper than Apple, that's competition. Apple can squash them by making it difficult to do business in other ways. Legal methods, IMH and not enforceable O, are messed up.
As for redistributing paid-for-and-cracked software? Gosh. That's exactly what I think should be a protected right. I realize it isn't. You can redistribute a paid-for-and-modified Ford, right?
Right. It doesn't matter if you can't download it. You can still legally obtain both iDVD and an external DVD burner. You should be able to use both of these posessions in any manner you like.
I realized my post was bogus a couple seconds after I posted it, but I had to run off to work.
Right. And if that distributor also happens to own an Apple computer with an internal SuperDrive, then they would also have iDVD on their computers. I believe they should be able to both crack the software and tell other people how to crack the software. It's theirs, they own it, and they aren't distributing Apple's intellectual property.
However, the whole article was fantastically skimpy. They don't even really say specifically, what it was that OtherWorld Computing was doing that upset Apple. They don't explain the legal measures that Apple used, exactly. It's really impossible to tell if/how Apple overstepped their bounds.
I'm sorry. You are correct. If you remove the legal meaning of "fair use" and restrict it to the common sense meaning of "fair use" then my post stands.
If you purchase a cotton gin, for example, you may modify the cotton gin in absolutely any manner you see fit. The manufacturer could employ technical measures to stop you, but not legal ones.
I realize the law is not on my side. I'm just trying to say that it should be.
Yup. I saw that after I made the post. I tried to go back and reply with a correction, but I couldn't find the post.
Anyway. Not the point. Once someone owns iDVD, and they are not Apple, I believe that it is wrong for Apple to restrict their use of the software. I realize that current legislation does not agree with me. Most of all, if I acquire iDVD legally, either by purchasing a superdrive Apple, or by purchasing iDVD from someone else that purchased a superdrive Apple, then I should be able to do anything I like with my posession. I should be able to make it connect to third party devices if I want to, and I should be able to tell other people how to do that as well.
No... someone might have a second external DVD burner. Someone might sell their copy of iDVD to a third party that does not own an apple DVD burner.
There are reasons why someone might legally own iDVD and at the same time also want to use it with a third party DVD burner. These people have a right to use their own posessions however they see fit.
Except that iDVD is not free when purchased with a superdrive equipped Apple computer. It is a free download available to anyone right now.
Once it is on their hard drive, it becomes an issue of fair use. Apple has already given them the binary. Legally. They should be able to do anything they like with it. So long as they don't distribute any Apple-owned intellectual property, they should be able to inform other people of their modifications.
I really don't understand how you can argue that this isn't a consumer rights issue. If Apple said, "You are only allowed to download this software if you've got an Apple installed SuperDrive", then they'd be in the clear. Even then those superdrive owners should be able to mess with the application so that they can use it on an external DVD burner if they like.
That is incorrect. Apple will allow you to download the software from their website for free. Your point would be correct if Apple did not distribute the software in this manner. However, in this case, it becomes a fair use issue. The software is already on someone's hard drive. Legally. They should be able to do what they like with it.
It's not so much that geeks/techs are anti-Christian, but really that... um... intellectuals tend to be anti-Christian. Probably in similar proportions.
I couldn't tell you why other people are anti-Christian, but I can tell you why I am: Christianity is unfalsifiable. I can't imagine how such a hypothesis could be shown to improve anyone's understanding of the world around them. This leads me to suspect that every Christian has certain things to which he or she refuses to apply critical thought. I can't see how that does anyone any good.
Of course, many people apply all kinds of critical thought to religion... but until they make a falsifiable prediction, I feel like they've done it wrong. I guess that's where my point falls apart. Eh, it's only karma.
What do you mean integrate X11 more smoothly into OSX? Seems to me like it's about as smoothly integrated as you'd ever want. There's even an X Windows window manager that integrates with the Dock.
You "doubt Apple will succeed with this"? Do you say this because... no GPL apps work with the Quartz GUI? No GPL apps work with the Win32 GUI? Like, you know, Mozilla and Emacs? They'd *never* support a proprietary window scheme like that.
Yeah, and... Redhat has made it clear that they believe they can increase their value most efficiently for their shareholders by operating both under the letter and the spirit of the GPL.
Their valuable intellectual property that you can only get from them is not in software. It's in their support personel. If they did what you describe, they would lose the ability to sell their product (support) because all their personel would... walk out the door. Not just Alan Cox.
I think Arthur Clarke was right when, in "The Songs of Distant Earth" IIRC, he suggested that anyone who wanted a political office was, by definition, emotionally unsuited to having that office.
Maybe, maybe not... but: Anyone who wants a political office enough to do the things required to become elected in the 21st century is almost guaranteed to be emotionally and morally unsuited to having that office.
ooh. Good poll idea. If only/. put real issues in the poll...
The war on drugs: 1)I support the current war on drugs. 2)I support the legalization of a few drugs. 3)I support the legalization of most drugs. 4)I support the legalization of all drugs. 5)I support cowboyneal's drugs.
These people are NOT having their rights infringed on. I can make a database of any group of people I want...hell, I can go through the phonebook, find out where the person lives and go take a picture of them AND IT'S PERFECTLY LEGAL. All this organization is doing is keeping track of people that have been caught in 'questionable activities' and making a list.
Right. But you're a citizen, and this is the government. There are a large number of things that you can do in your free time, but could not do while acting as a police officer.
If these peoples' civil rights are infringed upon, please, get up in arms...I'll join right along with you. But if the police are just compiling a database, not performing searches, pulling them over unnecessarily (note: I am not referring to racial profiling) or taking them into jail without cause, I see no problem with this.
Um, then what are they using this database for? The article very notably does not say. So long as the police officers use the database for nothing more than... an office betting pool, I can't imagine a legal use.
It could, in fact, be a good way to keep an eye on potential trouble makers. If the cops checked what these individuals were doing on a weekly, monthly, yearly basis, it would keep some innocents from getting harmed.
See... that's what I mean when I say I can't imagine a legal use. That would be *fucked* *up*.
Remember, these are not random picks from the phone book...there's a reason why these people are in this database. Maybe they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, but doubtful...the majority were probably in the process of or about to commit crimes (drugs, vandalism, murder) when they were picked up.
Right. So if police use this technique for *all* types of criminals, then there will be no "equal protection under the law" gripes.
--trb...and to anyone with that "Those who give up a little liberty to get safety..." line in your sig, remember NO LIBERTIES have been sacrificed here
Good point. None of *my* liberties have been sacrificed... because I'm well off, white, and I live in the suburbs.
In the unlikely event that IBM went after Sony for trademark infringement on the PS-2 brand (I doubt that IBM or Sony actually trademarked that particular string of ASCII), IBM would be laughed out of court.
Sony could make a pretty convincing case that the PlayStation 2 does not compete, and is not likely confused with the computing platform PS/2. If you could copyright two letters and a number, we'd have much more serious problems on our hands.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you think you could do it for cheaper than $500/article if you were doing 40,000 articles per year? Are there any economies of scale to be used?
If he were really big, think he could charge money to submittors? If it wouldn't be a very large sum compared to the cost of the research, then this could be considered a research expense. It's the cost of auditing. There'd have to be some system that made it so the auditors would have no reward for accepting papers...
Ah, maybe it can't be done.
Of course you're right. But...
He has another way to achieve notoriety. If he can grow his lay-readership bigger than the more obscure journals, he might be able to draw submissions away from them. People doing library research will still have access to the articles if he gets them in the major indexes. He wouldn't have to focus on a specific genre of scientific inquiry, and he doesn't have a limit on the volume he could publish. His initial competitors for paper submittal wouldn't be Psychology, or even Linguistics. It would be the second-place journals that have impeccable but not groundbreaking research. I'm sure there are thousands of these journals. And I'm sure they sometimes have to turn down stories simply to conserve space.
By aiming for more obscure subjects, he could become a clearinghouse for all types of research, so long as it is perfectly rigorous. Eventually he might be able to draw submissions from the massive journals just because the researchers want their papers to be more available.
Better yet, reply if you think it's a bad idea.
For example, I think it's a bad idea.
Mostly because AI is generally an argument topic. It'd be like having an "Evolution" topic. Whenever anyone brings up AI, you get twenty highly rated posts talking about "Why don't the researchers see that AI would be easy if only they [insert poorly thought-out idea here]". And then you get like three voices of reason explaining why none of this is groundbreaking.
Er... I just made your point. If we had an A.I. topic, then everyone with my complaint could filter out the flames....
I guess I'm just trying to say there shouldn't necessarily be *more* AI stories.
How long 'til we get to see some leaked photos of Apple-specific X86 hardwware?
Jesus Christ, give me a minute. Photoshop is a little slow on this 600mHz iBook.
It's ridiculous to consider physical actions as speech? Are you kidding? The way we interface with the world is through "physical actions." Speech is a physical action for crying out loud.
Speech should be protected but not... typing? Speech should be protected but not... sign language?
If you're free to tell your neighbor that you think President Clinton was a crook, but you can be arrested for say... sending your neighbor an email that says you think President Clinton was a crook, I'm sure you'd agree the government had overstepped. If you don't, then sure, your position is self-consistent. If you're trying to say that speech should be protected, but not communication in general, and you still want to be able to communicate freely, your position is untenable.
And if you're going to say that communication should be protected, but not expression... fine... tell me how you detect the difference. If burning a flag isn't an excellent way to communicate that you are upset with the government, I don't know what is.
Apple doesn't have a problem with un-free software.
They've licensed freunhoffer(sp?) code for use in iTunes, if I understand correctly. This was back when some people felt like Ogg wasn't as good a codec, but still: Apple can afford to use proprietary algorithms.
And anyway. It would have cost them much much more to make an iPod that supported Ogg anyway. Sure, there are people working on Ogg codec hardware... but you can't buy it from TI today.
Microsoft is free to embrace and extend in any case. They can make a zeroconf implementation that only kindof works with or without Apple's code. Apple might want to consider only licensing the "Rendezvous" trademark to companies with an implementation that they like.
Since Apple simply wants to speed adoption of this technology by *everybody*, then a BSD license or even placing the software in the public domain would be to their best advantage.
Apple might want to make some compromise between fastest-possible-adoption and controlling-intellectual-property. But all the control in the world won't let them control zeroconf. Hopefully they'll try to guarantee interoperability with the "Rendezvous" trademark/logo.
Yes. Other posters have pointed out my error. I have replied to them that it does not matter:
3. Transfer. You may not rent, lease, lend or sublicense the Apple Software. You may, however, make a one-time permanent transfer of all of your license rights to the Apple Software to another party, provided that: (a) the transfer must include all of the Apple Software, including all its component parts, original media, printed materials and this License; (b) you do not retain any copies of the Apple Software, full or partial, including copies stored on a computer or other storage device; and (c) the party receiving the Apple Software reads and agrees to accept the terms and conditions of this License.
This means that you can sell your iDVD software to a third party, that owns no Apple SuperDrive. They should be able to use the software however they like. Same for users that have both an internal and an external DVD burner.
Yeah, that would be totally messed up of OWC. Zettabyte was doing that, and Apple stopped them. We didn't get the legal specifics in that case either.
The reason that would be messed up of OWC, however, would be that they would have to distribute unlicensed copies of iDVD. If OWC can build a SuperDrive Macintosh for cheaper than Apple, that's competition. Apple can squash them by making it difficult to do business in other ways. Legal methods, IMH and not enforceable O, are messed up.
As for redistributing paid-for-and-cracked software? Gosh. That's exactly what I think should be a protected right. I realize it isn't. You can redistribute a paid-for-and-modified Ford, right?
Right. It doesn't matter if you can't download it. You can still legally obtain both iDVD and an external DVD burner. You should be able to use both of these posessions in any manner you like.
I realized my post was bogus a couple seconds after I posted it, but I had to run off to work.
Right. And if that distributor also happens to own an Apple computer with an internal SuperDrive, then they would also have iDVD on their computers. I believe they should be able to both crack the software and tell other people how to crack the software. It's theirs, they own it, and they aren't distributing Apple's intellectual property.
However, the whole article was fantastically skimpy. They don't even really say specifically, what it was that OtherWorld Computing was doing that upset Apple. They don't explain the legal measures that Apple used, exactly. It's really impossible to tell if/how Apple overstepped their bounds.
I'm sorry. You are correct. If you remove the legal meaning of "fair use" and restrict it to the common sense meaning of "fair use" then my post stands.
If you purchase a cotton gin, for example, you may modify the cotton gin in absolutely any manner you see fit. The manufacturer could employ technical measures to stop you, but not legal ones.
I realize the law is not on my side. I'm just trying to say that it should be.
Yup. I saw that after I made the post. I tried to go back and reply with a correction, but I couldn't find the post.
Anyway. Not the point. Once someone owns iDVD, and they are not Apple, I believe that it is wrong for Apple to restrict their use of the software. I realize that current legislation does not agree with me. Most of all, if I acquire iDVD legally, either by purchasing a superdrive Apple, or by purchasing iDVD from someone else that purchased a superdrive Apple, then I should be able to do anything I like with my posession. I should be able to make it connect to third party devices if I want to, and I should be able to tell other people how to do that as well.
It's *still* fair use.
No... someone might have a second external DVD burner. Someone might sell their copy of iDVD to a third party that does not own an apple DVD burner.
There are reasons why someone might legally own iDVD and at the same time also want to use it with a third party DVD burner. These people have a right to use their own posessions however they see fit.
How about people with a superdrive and an external burner. This is about fair use. For them, at least, if no one else.
Except that iDVD is not free when purchased with a superdrive equipped Apple computer. It is a free download available to anyone right now.
Once it is on their hard drive, it becomes an issue of fair use. Apple has already given them the binary. Legally. They should be able to do anything they like with it. So long as they don't distribute any Apple-owned intellectual property, they should be able to inform other people of their modifications.
I really don't understand how you can argue that this isn't a consumer rights issue. If Apple said, "You are only allowed to download this software if you've got an Apple installed SuperDrive", then they'd be in the clear. Even then those superdrive owners should be able to mess with the application so that they can use it on an external DVD burner if they like.
That is incorrect. Apple will allow you to download the software from their website for free. Your point would be correct if Apple did not distribute the software in this manner. However, in this case, it becomes a fair use issue. The software is already on someone's hard drive. Legally. They should be able to do what they like with it.
It's not so much that geeks/techs are anti-Christian, but really that... um... intellectuals tend to be anti-Christian. Probably in similar proportions.
I couldn't tell you why other people are anti-Christian, but I can tell you why I am: Christianity is unfalsifiable. I can't imagine how such a hypothesis could be shown to improve anyone's understanding of the world around them. This leads me to suspect that every Christian has certain things to which he or she refuses to apply critical thought. I can't see how that does anyone any good.
Of course, many people apply all kinds of critical thought to religion... but until they make a falsifiable prediction, I feel like they've done it wrong. I guess that's where my point falls apart. Eh, it's only karma.
What do you mean integrate X11 more smoothly into OSX? Seems to me like it's about as smoothly integrated as you'd ever want. There's even an X Windows window manager that integrates with the Dock.
You "doubt Apple will succeed with this"? Do you say this because... no GPL apps work with the Quartz GUI? No GPL apps work with the Win32 GUI? Like, you know, Mozilla and Emacs? They'd *never* support a proprietary window scheme like that.
I guess I don't understand what you mean.
Yeah, and... Redhat has made it clear that they believe they can increase their value most efficiently for their shareholders by operating both under the letter and the spirit of the GPL.
Their valuable intellectual property that you can only get from them is not in software. It's in their support personel. If they did what you describe, they would lose the ability to sell their product (support) because all their personel would... walk out the door. Not just Alan Cox.
I think Arthur Clarke was right when, in "The Songs of Distant Earth" IIRC, he suggested that anyone who wanted a political office was, by definition, emotionally unsuited to having that office.
Maybe, maybe not... but: Anyone who wants a political office enough to do the things required to become elected in the 21st century is almost guaranteed to be emotionally and morally unsuited to having that office.
ooh. Good poll idea. If only /. put real issues in the poll...
The war on drugs:
1)I support the current war on drugs.
2)I support the legalization of a few drugs.
3)I support the legalization of most drugs.
4)I support the legalization of all drugs.
5)I support cowboyneal's drugs.
These people are NOT having their rights infringed on. I can make a database of any group of people I want...hell, I can go through the phonebook, find out where the person lives and go take a picture of them AND IT'S PERFECTLY LEGAL. All this organization is doing is keeping track of people that have been caught in 'questionable activities' and making a list.
...and to anyone with that "Those who give up a little liberty to get safety..." line in your sig, remember NO LIBERTIES have been sacrificed here
Right. But you're a citizen, and this is the government. There are a large number of things that you can do in your free time, but could not do while acting as a police officer.
If these peoples' civil rights are infringed upon, please, get up in arms...I'll join right along with you. But if the police are just compiling a database, not performing searches, pulling them over unnecessarily (note: I am not referring to racial profiling) or taking them into jail without cause, I see no problem with this.
Um, then what are they using this database for? The article very notably does not say. So long as the police officers use the database for nothing more than... an office betting pool, I can't imagine a legal use.
It could, in fact, be a good way to keep an eye on potential trouble makers. If the cops checked what these individuals were doing on a weekly, monthly, yearly basis, it would keep some innocents from getting harmed.
See... that's what I mean when I say I can't imagine a legal use. That would be *fucked* *up*.
Remember, these are not random picks from the phone book...there's a reason why these people are in this database. Maybe they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, but doubtful...the majority were probably in the process of or about to commit crimes (drugs, vandalism, murder) when they were picked up.
Right. So if police use this technique for *all* types of criminals, then there will be no "equal protection under the law" gripes.
--trb
Good point. None of *my* liberties have been sacrificed... because I'm well off, white, and I live in the suburbs.
Thank you. Why do I get the idea that Telex4 just pulled off a really extensive troll?
In the unlikely event that IBM went after Sony for trademark infringement on the PS-2 brand (I doubt that IBM or Sony actually trademarked that particular string of ASCII), IBM would be laughed out of court.
Sony could make a pretty convincing case that the PlayStation 2 does not compete, and is not likely confused with the computing platform PS/2. If you could copyright two letters and a number, we'd have much more serious problems on our hands.