In the dissenting statement, Commissioner Orson Swindle makes an excellent point about how COPPA has strangled children's services in the U.S. to the point that many have shut down. They could not afford to acquire parental consent for each end user.
However, perhaps this problem could be alleviated with a government backed authentication scheme. This may sound like sci fi (and it is), but it's essentially a digital analogy of your driver's license or social insurance number, but for each and every citizen. It has to be government backed in order to be trustable and to ensure each person has an digital identity. Plus, the government already tracks information like who is the child of whom.
Then, whenever a site needed to verify that a person is either over the age of 13 or that his or her parent consented, the end user can authenticate him or herself.
Opening up the APIs to their COM objects and DLLs would be so nice. I'd love to get ahold of the Office widgets. The MS Office team (apparently) doesn't even use MFC because it's such a piece of junk. Just compare the toolbars and look very carefully at the length of the separators.
However, the reason why the MS Office widgets are so lovely compared to the crufty MFC widgets is that the Office widget code is entirely internal to Microsoft. Thus, backwards compatibility isn't as much of a concern. And it was backwards compatibility that muddied MFC (and Windows). Ask anyone who's written floating CToolbars ($#@*!ing COMCTL32.DLL).
Microsoft will be sued very readily for violating antitrust if they modify their newly open APIs. Competitors could claim they did it to purposely screw them, especially since Microsoft will only release the changes after they've internally adapted to them. At one level, they'd be right. At another, well, tough. Differently versioned COM interfaces have unique GUIDs for a reason.
And you thought Windows/System32 was big as it stands! Now version it...
Re:Not that I am particularly happy about this, bu
on
MP3.com Loses In Court
·
· Score: 1
I've written some rough hints on how to license music for your own website. I haven't tried it yet, but it should point you in the right direction.
Re:Information isn't french toast either
on
RMS On eBooks
·
· Score: 1
Thank you for your insightful reply. We are on the same wavelength, well up until your summary of what I wrote.;)
I think it's reasonable for publishers to require a fee for multiple use
There's reasonable and then there's feasible. In order to preserve the publishing model, this is reasonable. I don't think it's ultimately feasible.
The only way to ensure this happens is client-side security. Hence all that magic technology like reader software to do the policing at your end of the transaction. Sure thing we do this with software (and atoms) based on ethical and legal considerations, but that could evaporate with free software movements and the disintegration of the legal framework. It's very hard to police people in Sweden if you live in the United States. Well, maybe not for the U.S., but other countries are still sane. I'm not sure what will ultimately happen with this in the future, though.
destroying the history of newsprint
Newsprint is pretty near the grave as it stands. The addition of colour pie charts and such are newspapers' response to television. Articles have gotten shallower, investigative journalism isn't. But this is getting off-topic.
Generally, though, everything you say online is recorded whether you want it to or not. People will make copies of newspapers and archive them, mostly because of the idiotic protection laws wrapped around them. This post on Slashdot will be archived for posterity. That's just how it goes.
possibly kill off libraries
Well, you don't need an atom warehouse for electronic media anyway. Online, anyone can just download a copy. Hey, no overdue fines!
Anyway, I don't think you'll ever discourage a (good) novelist or poet from writing a book. That isn't any concern of all. Schlock and non-fiction books are the ones subject to stress here. Schlock will always live and non-fiction will find a new place in between FAQs, websites, newsgroups, wikis, etc.
Ultimately, you pay for value. Is the value in the copy of the information or the information itself? Indeed, you may just pay a site for access to its content which you are free to download. Copyright laws may ethically keep you from duplicating them, but they won't stop anyone if they truly wished to do it. Just like I could steal your bike if I really wanted to. I just don't.
But then again, many people distinguish between stealing MP3s and stealing bread.
Re:Atoms aren't electrons aren't atoms
on
RMS On eBooks
·
· Score: 1
The problem is that the middleman [...] which used to take the information from the creator and tie it to atoms took the most atoms in return [...] And they feel they are losing ground to MP3 and TXT/XML and they don't want to.
I agree. But it would be naive to suggest that there is any economic value in controlling reproduction of information in the future. In fact, there's no real value embedded in a reproduction of information at all. I find it bizarre that someone like Stallman who promotes free software would suggest that one could "buy" a book, or information that is. Books themselves will have to become free--there's nothing to stop them from becoming such. Monetary gain must be made by other means besides information distribution.
And that means no used (e)book stores because there'd be no point. And that means no paying $1 to an author because there'd be no point. You'd just go elsewhere.
What's that saying? Information wants to be free.
Atoms aren't electrons aren't atoms
on
RMS On eBooks
·
· Score: 2
I'm confused about the point Stallman was trying to make. He seemed to be confusing atoms and electrons.
Imagine: no more used book stores; no more lending a book to your friend; no more borrowing one from the public library
Well, obviously. The subtlety I think Stallman is missing is that all those are based on exchanging atoms which are the medium of information.
In the "dark age of atoms," copyright still applied as it does now. People weren't allowed to make copies of existing works. They were only allowed to move around their copies, their atoms.
With electronic editions of books, it is difficult to guarantee that copies won't fork like rabbits which would dilute the value of the work. While tracking each user as she reads a book might be excessive, these kinds of things are just attempts to deal with this new and wonderful and weird economic side effect of "information" economies.
If you like a book, and a box pops up on your computer saying "Click here to give the author one dollar," wouldn't you click?
Well, no. Not as often as I should, anyway. There's no compelling reason for me to pay for any material I want, especially after I've already received the material, except moral obligation.
The great thing with atom based economies was that the merchants had a monopoly on the manufacturing process. Consumers were incapable of reproducing the product at negligible or economical cost. I don't think this reader software really comes to grip with the problem, and I certainly don't think anyone really knows how, least of all Stallman who doesn't really need to care about making money in this environment.
Anyway, the reader software reminds me of William Gibson's Agrippa which erased itself as you read it. At least in that case it was part of the art and not the business.
Even "Free" software can be exploited for economic gain. Corporate systems are brutally efficient at "maximizing shareholder value" in all economic environments.
Free software and open source just changed the playing field which puts "old-style" (if you can call two decades old) corporations on unstable footing. But they'll adapt; they have to. Meanwhile, the net is wide open and free software corporations have the ball.
Slashdot Mirror
However, perhaps this problem could be alleviated with a government backed authentication scheme. This may sound like sci fi (and it is), but it's essentially a digital analogy of your driver's license or social insurance number, but for each and every citizen. It has to be government backed in order to be trustable and to ensure each person has an digital identity. Plus, the government already tracks information like who is the child of whom.
Then, whenever a site needed to verify that a person is either over the age of 13 or that his or her parent consented, the end user can authenticate him or herself.
A shadow identity may also be an interesting twist on this.
However, the reason why the MS Office widgets are so lovely compared to the crufty MFC widgets is that the Office widget code is entirely internal to Microsoft. Thus, backwards compatibility isn't as much of a concern. And it was backwards compatibility that muddied MFC (and Windows). Ask anyone who's written floating CToolbars ($#@*!ing COMCTL32.DLL).
Microsoft will be sued very readily for violating antitrust if they modify their newly open APIs. Competitors could claim they did it to purposely screw them, especially since Microsoft will only release the changes after they've internally adapted to them. At one level, they'd be right. At another, well, tough. Differently versioned COM interfaces have unique GUIDs for a reason.
And you thought Windows/System32 was big as it stands! Now version it...
I've written some rough hints on how to license music for your own website. I haven't tried it yet, but it should point you in the right direction.
I think it's reasonable for publishers to require a fee for multiple use
There's reasonable and then there's feasible. In order to preserve the publishing model, this is reasonable. I don't think it's ultimately feasible.
The only way to ensure this happens is client-side security. Hence all that magic technology like reader software to do the policing at your end of the transaction. Sure thing we do this with software (and atoms) based on ethical and legal considerations, but that could evaporate with free software movements and the disintegration of the legal framework. It's very hard to police people in Sweden if you live in the United States. Well, maybe not for the U.S., but other countries are still sane. I'm not sure what will ultimately happen with this in the future, though.
destroying the history of newsprint
Newsprint is pretty near the grave as it stands. The addition of colour pie charts and such are newspapers' response to television. Articles have gotten shallower, investigative journalism isn't. But this is getting off-topic.
Generally, though, everything you say online is recorded whether you want it to or not. People will make copies of newspapers and archive them, mostly because of the idiotic protection laws wrapped around them. This post on Slashdot will be archived for posterity. That's just how it goes.
possibly kill off libraries
Well, you don't need an atom warehouse for electronic media anyway. Online, anyone can just download a copy. Hey, no overdue fines!
Anyway, I don't think you'll ever discourage a (good) novelist or poet from writing a book. That isn't any concern of all. Schlock and non-fiction books are the ones subject to stress here. Schlock will always live and non-fiction will find a new place in between FAQs, websites, newsgroups, wikis, etc.
Ultimately, you pay for value. Is the value in the copy of the information or the information itself? Indeed, you may just pay a site for access to its content which you are free to download. Copyright laws may ethically keep you from duplicating them, but they won't stop anyone if they truly wished to do it. Just like I could steal your bike if I really wanted to. I just don't.
But then again, many people distinguish between stealing MP3s and stealing bread.
I agree. But it would be naive to suggest that there is any economic value in controlling reproduction of information in the future. In fact, there's no real value embedded in a reproduction of information at all. I find it bizarre that someone like Stallman who promotes free software would suggest that one could "buy" a book, or information that is. Books themselves will have to become free--there's nothing to stop them from becoming such. Monetary gain must be made by other means besides information distribution.
And that means no used (e)book stores because there'd be no point. And that means no paying $1 to an author because there'd be no point. You'd just go elsewhere.
What's that saying? Information wants to be free.
Imagine: no more used book stores; no more lending a book to your friend; no more borrowing one from the public library
Well, obviously. The subtlety I think Stallman is missing is that all those are based on exchanging atoms which are the medium of information.
In the "dark age of atoms," copyright still applied as it does now. People weren't allowed to make copies of existing works. They were only allowed to move around their copies, their atoms.
With electronic editions of books, it is difficult to guarantee that copies won't fork like rabbits which would dilute the value of the work. While tracking each user as she reads a book might be excessive, these kinds of things are just attempts to deal with this new and wonderful and weird economic side effect of "information" economies.
If you like a book, and a box pops up on your computer saying "Click here to give the author one dollar," wouldn't you click?
Well, no. Not as often as I should, anyway. There's no compelling reason for me to pay for any material I want, especially after I've already received the material, except moral obligation.
The great thing with atom based economies was that the merchants had a monopoly on the manufacturing process. Consumers were incapable of reproducing the product at negligible or economical cost. I don't think this reader software really comes to grip with the problem, and I certainly don't think anyone really knows how, least of all Stallman who doesn't really need to care about making money in this environment.
Anyway, the reader software reminds me of William Gibson's Agrippa which erased itself as you read it. At least in that case it was part of the art and not the business.
Free software and open source just changed the playing field which puts "old-style" (if you can call two decades old) corporations on unstable footing. But they'll adapt; they have to. Meanwhile, the net is wide open and free software corporations have the ball.