I've always liked the idea of watermarks over DRM because it allows me to do what I want with content I've purchased. I don't think it's feasible for the current disc-based mediums that are out there. Video downloads would be the way to go here, I think.
If nothing else, when do you serve that warrant you mentioned? When 2 discs show up on the Internet that were rented by the same person? Three? Five? Ten? At what point does it become statistically significant enough to burden someone with a warrant? I know that I wouldn't want to take the chance of renting from a place that did this simply because of the (slim) chance that my computers would be seized.
With downloaded video, the watermarks would be customized to the user. A single leak is enough to know who did it, though certainly isn't enough to prove intent (what if my computer was stolen or compromised? You can bet that viruses would pop up to share watermarked videos).
What Google does is index webpages so that people can find what they're looking for on the web. They also serve advertisements based upon the terms entered in the search box. If I demand that my content be removed from Google's database, they can still serve ads based upon search terms.
Turnitin makes money directly off of other people's works. They sell a comparison between works. If I demand that they remove my content from their database, the content that they serve (and make money off of) is directly affected.
There are other differences, too. Google doesn't serve ads on their cached copy of the webpage, so they don't make money when they reproduce the work for other people to see. Turnitin always makes money if someone is using their service for any reason. Turnitin's business model requires that they store the entire work, whereas Google's doesn't--they merely have to store all of the words used in a given page and a URL (neither of which is likely to be copyrightable, but of course, I am generalizing, too).
Nevertheless, people have demanded that Google remove their content from their various services, such as their USENET search or their caches. Can you do this with Turnitin? If you do demand that your work be removed, what proof can you have of this?
Except that it's being done without the copyright holder's permission. 3rd parties (teachers) are checking for plagiarism using turnitin, not the original copyright holder.
Actually, how much any given paper is worth is dependant entirely upon how much the student thinks it is worth. Turnitin doesn't get to decide--they can only decide how much it is worth TO THEM to keep that paper in their database.
Ultimately, I doubt these students really want any money--they just want control of their own copyrighted works. Just like the RIAA--so many people promote the suggestion that piracy actually increases profits, but that's irrelevant to the larger issue of whether or not the RIAA is justified in going after infringers.
I have to concur. I saw "simple code" and then more than a page worth of code in my browser and thought, "Simple, my ass." Sure, it may be simple for Javascript, but if the GWT actually ends up making it easier to code, I'm all for it.
Frameworks like the GWT allow users to use their current experience in a language (in the GWT's case, that language is Java) and transform it into whatever the current fad is (in this case, AJAX).
Yes, they're a little bloated. So is code written in Delphi, C++ Builder, Visual Studio, etc. Obviously, the more you abstract away the details, the more bloat you get. What you have to evaluate is whether or not you get enough of a benefit from that abstraction. In the GWT's case, that benefit is likely to come in the form of rapid development and use of a mature codebase through a translation layer.
From Apple.com right this second: [url]http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObje cts/AppleStore.woa/6974000/wo/aT5Gmqo1LBGP3aQy8rhX 0N7IF9O/2.?p=0[/url]
$150 to go from 80gb to 120gb, which just so happens to be the base drive sizes for the high-end white Macbook and the black Macbook respectively.
Of course this company is held to the GPL. The question is whether or not leasing constitutes distribution. If it does, then this company would be required to release the source per the GPL. If leasing does not constitute distribution, then the company would still be required to comply with the GPL, however as they were not distributing the binaries, they would have no obligation to provide the source.
Could be, if they're smarter, but have less actual knowledge about your specific car. When anti-lock brakes came about, people had to adjust their driving habits because they weren't familiar with the new way of doing things.
Linux may be better at handling low-level tasks, but it still has to have the knowledge of how to talk to the hardware. If it is missing that knowledge--or if that knowledge is slightly flawed--it is possible to damage the hardware.
And yet, the 'spot-on' analogy is the one that is constantly referenced and belittled. How amusing.
At least I've gotten some confirmation that I'm not crazy, that my degree did not go to waste--that the specific, ridiculed analogy is actually reasonable. Thanks for that!:)
Ratings systems are far too subjective. Ratings systems for interactive content are far to difficult to manage. Most video games aren't like movies, where there is a linear path to follow and all of the content is clearly displayed if the film is viewed from beginning to end. A game is likely to have hundreds of diverging paths based upon player decisions. It's difficult for the creator to say exactly what the player might do that could be considered "for mature audiences only". Someone mentioned the 'upskirt' issue, where a player may pan the camera between the legs of a female character in the game. Is this particular action intended within the game? Probably not--rather, the programmers wanted to allow a free range of camera movement, and it just so happened that this allowed for a potentially "mature" scene.
Who, then, should be at fault if something like that slips by? Is it the programmer's fault? The reviewer's fault? Is the programmer expected to disclose every potential user-directed action that might be considered harmful to some players?
What about bugs? I've seen bugs where a character's head becomes removed from the body. Is this decapitation? Is it to be rated? Is the programmer at fault if the bug causes the problem? What about 3rd party mods? Hell, what about 1st party mods to older games?
This entire endeavor is rife with problems, and while I'm not saying that the problems can't be solved, one has to wonder if it's all really worth it.
I have yet to be told why the 'series of tubes' metaphor is so terrible. Perhaps you can?
I mean, as an analogy, it's not really so bad. True, there are no real tubes, but as Wikipedia points out:
The term pipe is a commonly used idiom to refer to a data connection, with pipe size being analogous to bandwidth.[13]
Routers use a data structure called a queue to buffer packets.[14] When packets arrive more quickly than can be forwarded, the router will hold the packets in a queue until they can be sent on to the next router or be dropped.[15] On congested links packets typically spend more time waiting in the queue than they do actually moving down wires or optical fiber. It is the delay of packets in the queue that causes the latency problems that make certain types of services impossible to use (see Network Neutrality).[16] References available on the Wiki page.
That said, legitimate e-mails get blocked when RBLs get overzealous. If I pay to have a connection and an e-mail address to correspond with people who happen to be on the same netblock as a spammer, my "connection" to that person may be cut off.
ISPs should provide an IP address, and should not restrict based upon throughput, data rate, RBL, or any other arbitrary mechanism unless they explicitly notify the customer. If they wish to provide this service, great. They could probably even charge for "advanced spam filtering" or whatever. But there is not reason to block access (in either direction) without the customer's consent.
I feel largely the same way. I don't particularly want to be able to copy my music onto my friends' computers, or onto their iPods. I do, however, want to be able to use the music/audiobooks/videos that I purchase in the way that I see fit. I don't think that it is reasonable for the copyright owner to be able to require that I only listen/view/read their content in the way they see fit.
I do understand their side, though. If you want to make a living with your creativity, you've got to be concerned with people going around the legally established means of getting copies of your content. I really do understand that. My hope is that a good middle-ground will eventually be found, so that I can do what I want with the content I purchase, and the artists can be assured of their deserved profits.
I still like the idea of watermarking content with the name of the person who purchased it. In this way, the source of a 'leak' could be found and sued. You'd take a giant risk even in giving copies of your purchases to close friends, because if they ever made future copies, your name would be on them.
That plan isn't perfect, and there is a lot that would have to be worked out, but it's a decent step in figuring out how we can all work together on this. Sadly, however, I don't think most people actually care about viewing the content "the way they want to." The success of ITMS underscores this--you don't see the masses complaining that they can't listen to their ITMS tracks on a Zune--you hear geeks and information packrats making these complaints.
Except that it isn't Youtube's job to monitor which works have been reinstated. They get a C&D from the copyright holder, and part of that C&D states (under penalty of perjury) that the work infringes, that the C&D comes from the copyright holder, and that the takedown notice is legal per the DMCA. Youtube MUST comply with such a notice to maintain their safe harbor status. The problem is that the second C&D was not legal per the DMCA, as once the item is reinstated, the copyright holder is supposed to get a court order to escalate the incident.
I have never heard anyone mention anything in the U.S. constitution that says there needs to be a balance between the rights of the creators of the work and the rights of the people. It's implied. The original purpose of copyright was not a way to give ownership of an intangible production, but to give a limited monopoly on the rights associated with that production (right to perform, right to copy, etc) so that the creator can make money from it. After the monopoly expired, the work was to enrich the public domain.
That is obviously no longer the case, as copyright extensions always show up once some major work is about to fall into the public domain.
What I think is really flawed or outdated is the concept that ignorance of the law is no excuse though it should still hold for common sense issues. It is economically infeasible to keep abreast of all the laws so that you can try not to violate them. I agree. Most laws follow common sense, so it's not a problem to obey them. But it only takes getting hit with one really obscure traffic law out of the blue to realize that the system sucks. Got a better proposal?
Hey, and as an added bonus, in my country, the law is protected by copyright! I'm not sure which country that is, but in America, we have a few laws protected by copyright: building codes. So you can't legally build a house that doesn't conform to the code, and you can't get a copy of the code without paying absurd fees. You can review the code at a library or town hall, of course, but that's probably pretty infeasible if you're trying to actually build a house yourself.
The clip she used was short and used for educational purposes. It clearly falls under fair use. What is ironic is that she was using the clip to show how corporations are abusing the DMCA nad copyright law.
The NFL demanded that Youtube remove the clip as per the DMCA. This is their right as the content-holder if they believe that their copyright is being infringed.
Seltzer sent a notice to Youtube stating that she did not infringe the NFL's copyright (as it was a fair use of the clip). This is her right as per the DMCA.
At this point, the NFL is supposed to use the courts. Instead, they sent another C&D to Youtube.
What this really illustrates is that the DMCA safe harbor provisions are fairly flawed. It's economically infeasible to monitor clips, keep track of which ones have been C&D'd already, and then file suit for every infringement that comes back to them per section 512. Actually,/right/now/ that's probably not true, however if more people exercised their rights, it would be. Copyright needs to be a balance between the rights of the creators of the work and the rights of the people. If the burden on the corporation becomes too high, they'll simply buy a stricter law.
The best solution is an unencrypted version with strong physical security (i.e. a safe, or the equivalent). You use the encrypted version most of the time because, simply, it is easier to work with. If you lose the password, open the safe to recover it.
Isn't the implication that the Hummer will last 3 times as long as the Prius? If they're including manufacturing 'costs' in their equation, and Hummers will go 3 times farther than Priuses (Priii?) then the manufacturing costs are 3 times higher over 300,000 miles (assuming a Prius lasts for 100,000 miles on average.)
Put another way, using their assumptions of longevity, you will have to buy three times as many Priuses over the course of your lifetime as Hummers. Therefore you calculate the 'cost' (be it in dollars or in wear-and-tear on the environment) three times for the Prius.
Slashdot Mirror
I've always liked the idea of watermarks over DRM because it allows me to do what I want with content I've purchased. I don't think it's feasible for the current disc-based mediums that are out there. Video downloads would be the way to go here, I think.
If nothing else, when do you serve that warrant you mentioned? When 2 discs show up on the Internet that were rented by the same person? Three? Five? Ten? At what point does it become statistically significant enough to burden someone with a warrant? I know that I wouldn't want to take the chance of renting from a place that did this simply because of the (slim) chance that my computers would be seized.
With downloaded video, the watermarks would be customized to the user. A single leak is enough to know who did it, though certainly isn't enough to prove intent (what if my computer was stolen or compromised? You can bet that viruses would pop up to share watermarked videos).
You would assume incorrectly. They explicitly state that they store papers which are sent in by professors for future comparisons.
Google makes money indirectly.
What Google does is index webpages so that people can find what they're looking for on the web. They also serve advertisements based upon the terms entered in the search box. If I demand that my content be removed from Google's database, they can still serve ads based upon search terms.
Turnitin makes money directly off of other people's works. They sell a comparison between works. If I demand that they remove my content from their database, the content that they serve (and make money off of) is directly affected.
There are other differences, too. Google doesn't serve ads on their cached copy of the webpage, so they don't make money when they reproduce the work for other people to see. Turnitin always makes money if someone is using their service for any reason. Turnitin's business model requires that they store the entire work, whereas Google's doesn't--they merely have to store all of the words used in a given page and a URL (neither of which is likely to be copyrightable, but of course, I am generalizing, too).
Nevertheless, people have demanded that Google remove their content from their various services, such as their USENET search or their caches. Can you do this with Turnitin? If you do demand that your work be removed, what proof can you have of this?
Except that it's being done without the copyright holder's permission. 3rd parties (teachers) are checking for plagiarism using turnitin, not the original copyright holder.
Actually, how much any given paper is worth is dependant entirely upon how much the student thinks it is worth. Turnitin doesn't get to decide--they can only decide how much it is worth TO THEM to keep that paper in their database.
Ultimately, I doubt these students really want any money--they just want control of their own copyrighted works. Just like the RIAA--so many people promote the suggestion that piracy actually increases profits, but that's irrelevant to the larger issue of whether or not the RIAA is justified in going after infringers.
I have to concur. I saw "simple code" and then more than a page worth of code in my browser and thought, "Simple, my ass." Sure, it may be simple for Javascript, but if the GWT actually ends up making it easier to code, I'm all for it.
Frameworks like the GWT allow users to use their current experience in a language (in the GWT's case, that language is Java) and transform it into whatever the current fad is (in this case, AJAX).
Yes, they're a little bloated. So is code written in Delphi, C++ Builder, Visual Studio, etc. Obviously, the more you abstract away the details, the more bloat you get. What you have to evaluate is whether or not you get enough of a benefit from that abstraction. In the GWT's case, that benefit is likely to come in the form of rapid development and use of a mature codebase through a translation layer.
From Apple.com right this second:e cts/AppleStore.woa/6974000/wo/aT5Gmqo1LBGP3aQy8rhX 0N7IF9O/2.?p=0[/url]
[url]http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObj
$150 to go from 80gb to 120gb, which just so happens to be the base drive sizes for the high-end white Macbook and the black Macbook respectively.
If I loan my notebook to you (hint: it runs Linux) do I have to provide you with the source code? What if I rent it to you?
Consider the above questions if I have also patched the kernel myself to include some changes. What do you think the answers to these questions are?
Of course this company is held to the GPL. The question is whether or not leasing constitutes distribution. If it does, then this company would be required to release the source per the GPL. If leasing does not constitute distribution, then the company would still be required to comply with the GPL, however as they were not distributing the binaries, they would have no obligation to provide the source.
Who knows? Is it a new keyboard with new features that gets initialized by the operating system?
Could be, if they're smarter, but have less actual knowledge about your specific car. When anti-lock brakes came about, people had to adjust their driving habits because they weren't familiar with the new way of doing things.
Linux may be better at handling low-level tasks, but it still has to have the knowledge of how to talk to the hardware. If it is missing that knowledge--or if that knowledge is slightly flawed--it is possible to damage the hardware.
Voice dialing. Lots of phones have it these days.
Short attention spans? I don't think it's reasonable to lump all music liste
And yet, the 'spot-on' analogy is the one that is constantly referenced and belittled. How amusing.
:)
At least I've gotten some confirmation that I'm not crazy, that my degree did not go to waste--that the specific, ridiculed analogy is actually reasonable. Thanks for that!
Ratings systems are far too subjective. Ratings systems for interactive content are far to difficult to manage. Most video games aren't like movies, where there is a linear path to follow and all of the content is clearly displayed if the film is viewed from beginning to end. A game is likely to have hundreds of diverging paths based upon player decisions. It's difficult for the creator to say exactly what the player might do that could be considered "for mature audiences only". Someone mentioned the 'upskirt' issue, where a player may pan the camera between the legs of a female character in the game. Is this particular action intended within the game? Probably not--rather, the programmers wanted to allow a free range of camera movement, and it just so happened that this allowed for a potentially "mature" scene.
Who, then, should be at fault if something like that slips by? Is it the programmer's fault? The reviewer's fault? Is the programmer expected to disclose every potential user-directed action that might be considered harmful to some players?
What about bugs? I've seen bugs where a character's head becomes removed from the body. Is this decapitation? Is it to be rated? Is the programmer at fault if the bug causes the problem? What about 3rd party mods? Hell, what about 1st party mods to older games?
This entire endeavor is rife with problems, and while I'm not saying that the problems can't be solved, one has to wonder if it's all really worth it.
I mean, as an analogy, it's not really so bad. True, there are no real tubes, but as Wikipedia points out: The term pipe is a commonly used idiom to refer to a data connection, with pipe size being analogous to bandwidth.[13]
Routers use a data structure called a queue to buffer packets.[14] When packets arrive more quickly than can be forwarded, the router will hold the packets in a queue until they can be sent on to the next router or be dropped.[15] On congested links packets typically spend more time waiting in the queue than they do actually moving down wires or optical fiber. It is the delay of packets in the queue that causes the latency problems that make certain types of services impossible to use (see Network Neutrality).[16] References available on the Wiki page.
That said, legitimate e-mails get blocked when RBLs get overzealous. If I pay to have a connection and an e-mail address to correspond with people who happen to be on the same netblock as a spammer, my "connection" to that person may be cut off.
ISPs should provide an IP address, and should not restrict based upon throughput, data rate, RBL, or any other arbitrary mechanism unless they explicitly notify the customer. If they wish to provide this service, great. They could probably even charge for "advanced spam filtering" or whatever. But there is not reason to block access (in either direction) without the customer's consent.
I feel largely the same way. I don't particularly want to be able to copy my music onto my friends' computers, or onto their iPods. I do, however, want to be able to use the music/audiobooks/videos that I purchase in the way that I see fit. I don't think that it is reasonable for the copyright owner to be able to require that I only listen/view/read their content in the way they see fit.
I do understand their side, though. If you want to make a living with your creativity, you've got to be concerned with people going around the legally established means of getting copies of your content. I really do understand that. My hope is that a good middle-ground will eventually be found, so that I can do what I want with the content I purchase, and the artists can be assured of their deserved profits.
I still like the idea of watermarking content with the name of the person who purchased it. In this way, the source of a 'leak' could be found and sued. You'd take a giant risk even in giving copies of your purchases to close friends, because if they ever made future copies, your name would be on them.
That plan isn't perfect, and there is a lot that would have to be worked out, but it's a decent step in figuring out how we can all work together on this. Sadly, however, I don't think most people actually care about viewing the content "the way they want to." The success of ITMS underscores this--you don't see the masses complaining that they can't listen to their ITMS tracks on a Zune--you hear geeks and information packrats making these complaints.
Except that it isn't Youtube's job to monitor which works have been reinstated. They get a C&D from the copyright holder, and part of that C&D states (under penalty of perjury) that the work infringes, that the C&D comes from the copyright holder, and that the takedown notice is legal per the DMCA. Youtube MUST comply with such a notice to maintain their safe harbor status. The problem is that the second C&D was not legal per the DMCA, as once the item is reinstated, the copyright holder is supposed to get a court order to escalate the incident.
That is obviously no longer the case, as copyright extensions always show up once some major work is about to fall into the public domain. What I think is really flawed or outdated is the concept that ignorance of the law is no excuse though it should still hold for common sense issues. It is economically infeasible to keep abreast of all the laws so that you can try not to violate them. I agree. Most laws follow common sense, so it's not a problem to obey them. But it only takes getting hit with one really obscure traffic law out of the blue to realize that the system sucks. Got a better proposal? Hey, and as an added bonus, in my country, the law is protected by copyright! I'm not sure which country that is, but in America, we have a few laws protected by copyright: building codes. So you can't legally build a house that doesn't conform to the code, and you can't get a copy of the code without paying absurd fees. You can review the code at a library or town hall, of course, but that's probably pretty infeasible if you're trying to actually build a house yourself.
The clip she used was short and used for educational purposes. It clearly falls under fair use. What is ironic is that she was using the clip to show how corporations are abusing the DMCA nad copyright law.
/right/now/ that's probably not true, however if more people exercised their rights, it would be. Copyright needs to be a balance between the rights of the creators of the work and the rights of the people. If the burden on the corporation becomes too high, they'll simply buy a stricter law.
The NFL demanded that Youtube remove the clip as per the DMCA. This is their right as the content-holder if they believe that their copyright is being infringed.
Seltzer sent a notice to Youtube stating that she did not infringe the NFL's copyright (as it was a fair use of the clip). This is her right as per the DMCA.
At this point, the NFL is supposed to use the courts. Instead, they sent another C&D to Youtube.
What this really illustrates is that the DMCA safe harbor provisions are fairly flawed. It's economically infeasible to monitor clips, keep track of which ones have been C&D'd already, and then file suit for every infringement that comes back to them per section 512. Actually,
The best solution is an unencrypted version with strong physical security (i.e. a safe, or the equivalent). You use the encrypted version most of the time because, simply, it is easier to work with. If you lose the password, open the safe to recover it.
Ah ha! Therein lies the obvious advantage!
Isn't the implication that the Hummer will last 3 times as long as the Prius? If they're including manufacturing 'costs' in their equation, and Hummers will go 3 times farther than Priuses (Priii?) then the manufacturing costs are 3 times higher over 300,000 miles (assuming a Prius lasts for 100,000 miles on average.)
Put another way, using their assumptions of longevity, you will have to buy three times as many Priuses over the course of your lifetime as Hummers. Therefore you calculate the 'cost' (be it in dollars or in wear-and-tear on the environment) three times for the Prius.