In answer to your title question I don't know how much Draeker made at Loki.
I think it is fair to infer that he has enough money not to need to look for work immediately.
I do not think it is fair to assume he was profiting at the expense of the viability of the company. It's a possibility but we simply don't know.
Another possibility is that he could have other sources of income or a partner able to support him.
It is likely however that he has at least some money. Which may well be the mark of a man with some financial common sense. Save/Invest when times are good so you can make it through the leaner times.
And we don't know how long 'a break' is - for all we know he's talking about 6 weeks.
I'm not saying that it's not possible that he's gotten rich while others have suffered and is now sitting pretty - but it's just as possible that's not true.
I'd like more data before I decide - and while I'm waiting I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
They are also trying to create controls that go beyond what is necessary to achieve protection.
Here's the thing. I'm actually starting to believe that things have gotten to the point, or very close to it, where the only way you can acheive meaningful protection against massive unauthorised copying is the kind of draconian measures that as a consumer I can't stomach. I hope it's not that bad - or if it is that the answer is out there in some kind of clever new revenue model and/or copyright reform - but personally I don't know what it is.
What worries me is that very few people seem to think it's even an issue.
These people have been making money hand over fist for years and years. Do our top-name "entertainers" deserve these millions upon millions of dollars? Who do they think they are anyway, sports stars?
No I'm not sure they do. However that wasn't my point. I'm not arguing in support for huge salaries for big name stars. I'm arguing that if copyright is unenforceable - it's hard to make money whoever you are.
And that doesn't mean I support what the big studios do either - especially when they want to take my fair use rights away - but all I'm saying is I can see why they are doing it and we need some understanding of that on the other side of the argument. I'm not claiming to know the answer - but there needs to be some kind of copyright reform that address all sides of this issue.
More to the point, do we need to impose draconian anti-copying fair-use-destroying laws that inhibit our ability to use available technology, just so these fat cats of the entertainment industry can continue to rake in the bucks?
Of course we don't want that. But do we want to make it very difficult for books, movies and music to get made at all?
I agree that budget does not determine quality. However as a movie fan I don't ever want to get to the position where it's impossible to make big budget movies.
I like lots of different kinds of movies you see - including the Big Dumb Spectacular movie. I also like the Big Intelligent Spectacular - but they are harder to find:)
I agree that goodwill goes a long way but ultimately people go with their wallets a lot more than they tend to say they do. I'm sure we are both fine upstanding citizens you and I - but although people may say that they go out and buy the stuff they download but I believe that most people actually don't that much of the time.
The big problem is that it has become socially acceptable in many circles to expect to obtain and keep unauthorized copies. Combine that with the relative ease (and getting easier) of obtaining the copies and it's hard for anyone big or small to make money from selling copies.
Please remember I'm not advocating all the nasty, broken, heavy-handed methods used to prevent any copying. I want to keep my fair use rights thanks very much. But equally I see problems with the laisez-faire approach. I see it as a big dilemma and I don't know the answer.
I'm amazed you think that the current laws on their own give these companies some kind of 'power'. They don't they give them rights.
I'll repeat these laws only provide protection if they can be enforced and I think we are in a position where they will be unenforceable soon if they aren't already.
I meant large in scale - so I meant an industry capable of e.g. spending $200m to make the 3 LOTR films.
Do we have too few or too many tv channels/shows/music labels/groups etc. ? We have way too many!
I don't think so - but even if I did I think that we could easily go to too few with the changes I was talking about.
When you say we have too many is that because you're not really a fan and you do other things with your time? or is it because you are a fan but there are too many bad movies/shows/groups? Reducing the number won't weed out the bad - it will reduce both good and bad.
The BBC is making more and more content for its commercially funded digital channels. My belief is that in the future the government will use this as a rationale to finally do away with the license fee.
I don't understand your response. What do you mean by 'the media companies are protected, period'? Are you referring to their legal rights as copyrights holders? That protection is only effective if it is enforceable and I believe that it is less and less enforceable in the digital age. So clearly do the media companies themselves since they are trying to create their own protections with initiatives such as this.
And frankly, whilst I don't welcome them at all, I can understand why they do it.
Meaning that if the movie industry didn't exist, another one would grow up to replace it.
I agree - I'm just not sure whether it would be as large - which is why I wrote 'very little to play' rather than 'nothing'.
I keep coming back to the question of how would people wanting to make movies, music etc make money. People always phrase this in terms of the big corporations - and I understand why, they are the ones pushing for these changes, they are the ones with power, they are the ones responsible for most of the content out there. But do we really believe that the small independent producers have some secret to making money that the Big Bad Studios haven't thought of? So my view is that the small guys will be as vulnerable, or more so, to loss of revenue due to unauthorised copying of their work.
The other mistake, in my view, that people make is that they seem to treat the argument as if the current situation is static. The studios want to introduce a change that will reduce our rights - that much is true. But they do not acknowledge that the amount of unauthorised copying is increasing, or that this represents a real problem for the content producers. What the industry is trying to do is stem a tide, reverse a trend - it's not just about greed and getting more and more from the consumer, it's also about making sure their market doesn't diminish to a fraction of its current size. I see it as an unwelcome - but predictable and even understandable response.
Of course many people say that there's no point trying to restrict copying at all, that it flies in the face of the technology and that that particular genie is out of the bottle and won't go back. They argue that content producers should acknowledge this and simply find a revenue model that doesn't rely on copyright. Well the only one I can think of is the live concert/theatrical showing model - which would mean very significantly reduced revenues and possibly no official content at all. I can easily forsee a future where you can make a little money showing a movie in theatres but never bother producing a DVD because there's too small a market for it.
Which pretty much brings us back to our point of agreement (though you may not agree with my logic of getting there) - which is that if effective copyright protection doesn't exist then there movie and music industries will exist but be much more modest than there are now. You're not bothered by this because you say you wouldn't miss 'mega-budget trashy action movies'. Well you may not miss 'Armageddon' or 'Lord of the Rings' but frankly I would. They may or may not be great Art but they are entertaining.
Personally I see this as a great dilemma/turning point for digital media in our age. I'd like to hope that there is someone out there clever enough to be able to come up with a way to make money without attacking personal freedoms - but I'm afraid I'm pessimistic about it.
If it wasnt for the movie and record idustry, we would have hdtv recorders, dvd recorders, and mp3 players in our toasters.
But if it wasn't for the movie and record industry you'd have very little to play on them
That's not to say I'm in favour of skewing the copyright laws even more in favour of those industries, but there needs to be a balance. We need some kind of copyright reform that strengthens the personal use/fair use rights of individuals but allows content producers to protect their revenue. Because I've yet to see a sucessful media producing revenue model that doesn't at some stage rely on copyright protection.
Read the original story again - this is a story that could have been posted any time in the last few, or even next few weeks. Nothing happened yesterday to trigger this story - other than the anniversary of that landmark case - probably deliberate.
He mentions in passing that the reason for wanting to use 2.4 are the 'big iron' features - better support for large memory, large file and SMP. Notice it's better support so 2.2 will work but may not be exploiting his hardware to its best ability.
The reason he doesn't downgrade immediately is that it's a big job. Compared to a downgrade - which presumably involves a backup, rebuild and restore (sounds like several hours downtime), an upgrade to the next kernel is basically a reboot.
The fact is they took a significant decision when they decided to go 2.4 to begin with. Having made that decision - rightly or wrongly - he then has to make decisions about what to do when he hits bugs. The business may prefer (initially at least) to live with the problems rather than face a prolonged downtime for the downgrade. Or live with them until they can schedule such a downtime.
There may have been things he could have done better but hopelessly incompetent is a bit harsh.
Uh...this is Disney we're talking about, not the BBC (infamous for ditching and wiping tons of Dr. Who footage over the years making "director's cuts" next to impossible for many stories that need one).
If only it were just a question of Director's Cuts. There are whole episodes with no known permanent copy.
So, assuming that I support the political point RMS is making, how do I advance that point in a way that doesn't damage my personal interactions with the people who send me e-mail?
An excellent question. I guess my answer would be that if you're going to make poiltical points in your everyday life then you are going to upset people you don't understand or don't agree with you. If they are reasonable people they won't hold it against you - unfortunately not everyone is.
You have to decide whether you want to fight that particular battle or not. It may well be more effective for you to take the pragmatic "this is about getting a file I can read" approach over the attachment issue and seek to promote Free Software in other arenas. Pick your battles in other words.
But that sounds a bit preachy. I don't share RMS's politics and I spend hardly any time, in work or out, trying to convince others of my political views. So treat my advice with a measure of salt accordingly:)
By the way I think RMS's biggest claim to credibility comes from the fact that he's been saying the same thing for 20 years. He was as uncompromising at the beginning as he is now. And he has suffered some damage to his personal interactions. Presumably he considers it worth it.
Please understand I am not criticizing you in any way. I was merely trying to point out that RMS's article is about turning an annoyance into an opportunity for advocacy. If it's an opportunity you choose not to take than that's entirely up to you. It's certainly an opportunity I choose not to take because I'm not an advocate of Free Software.
RMS's point is that we should discourage the use of.doc, or free software developers will be perpetually chasing Microsoft's newest version.
IMO that's not his main point. He's a Free Software advocate and he wants you to be. He wants you to use the issue of not being able to open a file as an opportunity to spread the Good News about Free Software.
Forgive me for presuming but based on your reply, I would guess you have a more pragmatic goal - getting people to send you files you can read.
Stallman is proposing a particularly counterproductive way to go about it
Counterproductive to your goal not his. I'm sure RMS would prefer to be perceived as difficult whilst hopefully communicating something about Free Software, than to not appear difficult at all but to argue the case merely on pragmatism. See his writings on why he doesn't use the term Open Source for evidence of this.
RMS is a Free Software advocate. Free Software is political because it's about rights and freedom.
And the whole thrust of this article was not "Let's convince people to send us documents we can read" it was "Let's use the issue of not being able to read these documents to promote the wider issue of Free Software".
I happen to disagree with RMS but what he's saying is totally consistent with his beliefs. I would no more expect him to use 'non-political' examples than I would for him to call GNU software Open Source.
One of the things I've always noticed about estimation of software projects is very often there's a lack of formal feedback loop. I've never personally experienced a project 'post-mortem' where the accuracy of estimates was assessed. I've spoken to others who say "well we had something a bit like that but no-one takes it seriously, after all by then the project is over"
Surely if estimation is based on experience (and we know it is) then that experience needs to be recorded in some formal manner?
Your method is certainly better than just doubling. However one thing you haven't taken into account is that on large projects the detailed specification is a significant proportion of the work. Also if the prjoect lasts for many months the specs invariably change during that time - sometimes a little, sometimes a lot.
Don't get me wrong I'm not criticizing your method if it works for you. But there's no getting around the fact that for large (tens of person-years of effort or more) software projects - estimation is a tricky task.
I see a lot of posts which are very anti copy protection and I understand why - fair use rights being eroded, the deliberate crippling of useful technologies etc. However very few people seem to understand the other point of view. There's no proven revenue model for content that doesn't depend on keeping unauthorised copying to a minimum.
However much you may think that the MPAA or content producers are the evil empire, they are at the end of the day just companies trying to make a profit. They know they can make a profit if their content if their copyright protection is in some way enforceable. The problem is technology has made copying easier and with digital media copies maintain perfect quality. There are only two ways forward - find a different revenue model that can survive large scale unauthorised copying, or try to prop up the existing one. Most of the effort seems to go on the later because no-one seriously believes that a revenue model exists that doesn't at least strongly discourage unauthorised copying.
Personally I don't know where this will end but I can only see tough times ahead. Companies are not going to stop trying to protect their content and thus their revenue, and inidividuals are not going to stop trying to use the flexibility that the technology promises.
I hadn't forgotten about the DMCA - I thought it wouldn't apply to a case of audio copying?
Also doesn't it have to be a case of breaking encryption? Couldn't you argue this is just removing noise?
Since these copy prevention things work by adding deliberate errors or noise in the datastream, any technique which worked for that would probably also work to 'restore' a genuinely damaged CD. I think you could successfully argue that your copying technique was a restoration technique and it was not solely targetted at breaking this copy-prevention. What do you think?
Slashdot Mirror
In answer to your title question I don't know how much Draeker made at Loki.
I think it is fair to infer that he has enough money not to need to look for work immediately.
I do not think it is fair to assume he was profiting at the expense of the viability of the company. It's a possibility but we simply don't know.
Another possibility is that he could have other sources of income or a partner able to support him.
It is likely however that he has at least some money. Which may well be the mark of a man with some financial common sense. Save/Invest when times are good so you can make it through the leaner times.
And we don't know how long 'a break' is - for all we know he's talking about 6 weeks.
I'm not saying that it's not possible that he's gotten rich while others have suffered and is now sitting pretty - but it's just as possible that's not true.
I'd like more data before I decide - and while I'm waiting I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Here's the thing. I'm actually starting to believe that things have gotten to the point, or very close to it, where the only way you can acheive meaningful protection against massive unauthorised copying is the kind of draconian measures that as a consumer I can't stomach. I hope it's not that bad - or if it is that the answer is out there in some kind of clever new revenue model and/or copyright reform - but personally I don't know what it is.
What worries me is that very few people seem to think it's even an issue.
No I'm not sure they do. However that wasn't my point. I'm not arguing in support for huge salaries for big name stars. I'm arguing that if copyright is unenforceable - it's hard to make money whoever you are.
And that doesn't mean I support what the big studios do either - especially when they want to take my fair use rights away - but all I'm saying is I can see why they are doing it and we need some understanding of that on the other side of the argument. I'm not claiming to know the answer - but there needs to be some kind of copyright reform that address all sides of this issue.
More to the point, do we need to impose draconian anti-copying fair-use-destroying laws that inhibit our ability to use available technology, just so these fat cats of the entertainment industry can continue to rake in the bucks?
Of course we don't want that. But do we want to make it very difficult for books, movies and music to get made at all?
I agree that budget does not determine quality. However as a movie fan I don't ever want to get to the position where it's impossible to make big budget movies.
:)
I like lots of different kinds of movies you see - including the Big Dumb Spectacular movie. I also like the Big Intelligent Spectacular - but they are harder to find
I agree that goodwill goes a long way but ultimately people go with their wallets a lot more than they tend to say they do. I'm sure we are both fine upstanding citizens you and I - but although people may say that they go out and buy the stuff they download but I believe that most people actually don't that much of the time.
The big problem is that it has become socially acceptable in many circles to expect to obtain and keep unauthorized copies. Combine that with the relative ease (and getting easier) of obtaining the copies and it's hard for anyone big or small to make money from selling copies.
Please remember I'm not advocating all the nasty, broken, heavy-handed methods used to prevent any copying. I want to keep my fair use rights thanks very much. But equally I see problems with the laisez-faire approach. I see it as a big dilemma and I don't know the answer.
I'm amazed you think that the current laws on their own give these companies some kind of 'power'. They don't they give them rights.
I'll repeat these laws only provide protection if they can be enforced and I think we are in a position where they will be unenforceable soon if they aren't already.
I meant large in scale - so I meant an industry capable of e.g. spending $200m to make the 3 LOTR films.
Do we have too few or too many tv channels/shows/music labels/groups etc. ? We have way too many!I don't think so - but even if I did I think that we could easily go to too few with the changes I was talking about.
When you say we have too many is that because you're not really a fan and you do other things with your time? or is it because you are a fan but there are too many bad movies/shows/groups? Reducing the number won't weed out the bad - it will reduce both good and bad.
I thought I'd address this separately.
The BBC is making more and more content for its commercially funded digital channels. My belief is that in the future the government will use this as a rationale to finally do away with the license fee.
I don't understand your response. What do you mean by 'the media companies are protected, period'? Are you referring to their legal rights as copyrights holders? That protection is only effective if it is enforceable and I believe that it is less and less enforceable in the digital age. So clearly do the media companies themselves since they are trying to create their own protections with initiatives such as this.
And frankly, whilst I don't welcome them at all, I can understand why they do it.
I agree - I'm just not sure whether it would be as large - which is why I wrote 'very little to play' rather than 'nothing'.
I keep coming back to the question of how would people wanting to make movies, music etc make money. People always phrase this in terms of the big corporations - and I understand why, they are the ones pushing for these changes, they are the ones with power, they are the ones responsible for most of the content out there. But do we really believe that the small independent producers have some secret to making money that the Big Bad Studios haven't thought of? So my view is that the small guys will be as vulnerable, or more so, to loss of revenue due to unauthorised copying of their work.
The other mistake, in my view, that people make is that they seem to treat the argument as if the current situation is static. The studios want to introduce a change that will reduce our rights - that much is true. But they do not acknowledge that the amount of unauthorised copying is increasing, or that this represents a real problem for the content producers. What the industry is trying to do is stem a tide, reverse a trend - it's not just about greed and getting more and more from the consumer, it's also about making sure their market doesn't diminish to a fraction of its current size. I see it as an unwelcome - but predictable and even understandable response.
Of course many people say that there's no point trying to restrict copying at all, that it flies in the face of the technology and that that particular genie is out of the bottle and won't go back. They argue that content producers should acknowledge this and simply find a revenue model that doesn't rely on copyright. Well the only one I can think of is the live concert/theatrical showing model - which would mean very significantly reduced revenues and possibly no official content at all. I can easily forsee a future where you can make a little money showing a movie in theatres but never bother producing a DVD because there's too small a market for it.
Which pretty much brings us back to our point of agreement (though you may not agree with my logic of getting there) - which is that if effective copyright protection doesn't exist then there movie and music industries will exist but be much more modest than there are now. You're not bothered by this because you say you wouldn't miss 'mega-budget trashy action movies'. Well you may not miss 'Armageddon' or 'Lord of the Rings' but frankly I would. They may or may not be great Art but they are entertaining.
Personally I see this as a great dilemma/turning point for digital media in our age. I'd like to hope that there is someone out there clever enough to be able to come up with a way to make money without attacking personal freedoms - but I'm afraid I'm pessimistic about it.
But if it wasn't for the movie and record industry you'd have very little to play on them
That's not to say I'm in favour of skewing the copyright laws even more in favour of those industries, but there needs to be a balance. We need some kind of copyright reform that strengthens the personal use/fair use rights of individuals but allows content producers to protect their revenue. Because I've yet to see a sucessful media producing revenue model that doesn't at some stage rely on copyright protection.
Read the original story again - this is a story that could have been posted any time in the last few, or even next few weeks. Nothing happened yesterday to trigger this story - other than the anniversary of that landmark case - probably deliberate.
Somebody told me recently that that License Revoked story is an urban myth - the producers just preferred the other title.
He mentions in passing that the reason for wanting to use 2.4 are the 'big iron' features - better support for large memory, large file and SMP. Notice it's better support so 2.2 will work but may not be exploiting his hardware to its best ability.
The reason he doesn't downgrade immediately is that it's a big job. Compared to a downgrade - which presumably involves a backup, rebuild and restore (sounds like several hours downtime), an upgrade to the next kernel is basically a reboot.
The fact is they took a significant decision when they decided to go 2.4 to begin with. Having made that decision - rightly or wrongly - he then has to make decisions about what to do when he hits bugs. The business may prefer (initially at least) to live with the problems rather than face a prolonged downtime for the downgrade. Or live with them until they can schedule such a downtime.
There may have been things he could have done better but hopelessly incompetent is a bit harsh.
mathamatical is a spelling error not a grammatical one.
If only it were just a question of Director's Cuts. There are whole episodes with no known permanent copy.
Based on your test "virtually identical" might have been more accurate.
However it was essentially the same and I was just pointing that fact out to someone who was saying that Google was a better translation.
I tried your link after having use the fish. The output was identical!
An excellent question. I guess my answer would be that if you're going to make poiltical points in your everyday life then you are going to upset people you don't understand or don't agree with you. If they are reasonable people they won't hold it against you - unfortunately not everyone is.
You have to decide whether you want to fight that particular battle or not. It may well be more effective for you to take the pragmatic "this is about getting a file I can read" approach over the attachment issue and seek to promote Free Software in other arenas. Pick your battles in other words.
But that sounds a bit preachy. I don't share RMS's politics and I spend hardly any time, in work or out, trying to convince others of my political views. So treat my advice with a measure of salt accordingly :)
By the way I think RMS's biggest claim to credibility comes from the fact that he's been saying the same thing for 20 years. He was as uncompromising at the beginning as he is now. And he has suffered some damage to his personal interactions. Presumably he considers it worth it.
Please understand I am not criticizing you in any way. I was merely trying to point out that RMS's article is about turning an annoyance into an opportunity for advocacy. If it's an opportunity you choose not to take than that's entirely up to you. It's certainly an opportunity I choose not to take because I'm not an advocate of Free Software.
IMO that's not his main point. He's a Free Software advocate and he wants you to be. He wants you to use the issue of not being able to open a file as an opportunity to spread the Good News about Free Software.
Forgive me for presuming but based on your reply, I would guess you have a more pragmatic goal - getting people to send you files you can read.
Stallman is proposing a particularly counterproductive way to go about it
Counterproductive to your goal not his. I'm sure RMS would prefer to be perceived as difficult whilst hopefully communicating something about Free Software, than to not appear difficult at all but to argue the case merely on pragmatism. See his writings on why he doesn't use the term Open Source for evidence of this.
RMS is a Free Software advocate. Free Software is political because it's about rights and freedom.
And the whole thrust of this article was not "Let's convince people to send us documents we can read" it was "Let's use the issue of not being able to read these documents to promote the wider issue of Free Software".
I happen to disagree with RMS but what he's saying is totally consistent with his beliefs. I would no more expect him to use 'non-political' examples than I would for him to call GNU software Open Source.
One of the things I've always noticed about estimation of software projects is very often there's a lack of formal feedback loop. I've never personally experienced a project 'post-mortem' where the accuracy of estimates was assessed. I've spoken to others who say "well we had something a bit like that but no-one takes it seriously, after all by then the project is over"
Surely if estimation is based on experience (and we know it is) then that experience needs to be recorded in some formal manner?
Your method is certainly better than just doubling. However one thing you haven't taken into account is that on large projects the detailed specification is a significant proportion of the work. Also if the prjoect lasts for many months the specs invariably change during that time - sometimes a little, sometimes a lot.
Don't get me wrong I'm not criticizing your method if it works for you. But there's no getting around the fact that for large (tens of person-years of effort or more) software projects - estimation is a tricky task.
"But", you say, "The quality deteriorates with these copy methods."
Franlky, consumers don't care squat about audio or video quality.
Well enough people, care enough to pay enough to make it viable.
I see a lot of posts which are very anti copy protection and I understand why - fair use rights being eroded, the deliberate crippling of useful technologies etc. However very few people seem to understand the other point of view. There's no proven revenue model for content that doesn't depend on keeping unauthorised copying to a minimum.
However much you may think that the MPAA or content producers are the evil empire, they are at the end of the day just companies trying to make a profit. They know they can make a profit if their content if their copyright protection is in some way enforceable. The problem is technology has made copying easier and with digital media copies maintain perfect quality. There are only two ways forward - find a different revenue model that can survive large scale unauthorised copying, or try to prop up the existing one. Most of the effort seems to go on the later because no-one seriously believes that a revenue model exists that doesn't at least strongly discourage unauthorised copying.
Personally I don't know where this will end but I can only see tough times ahead. Companies are not going to stop trying to protect their content and thus their revenue, and inidividuals are not going to stop trying to use the flexibility that the technology promises.
I hadn't forgotten about the DMCA - I thought it wouldn't apply to a case of audio copying?
Also doesn't it have to be a case of breaking encryption? Couldn't you argue this is just removing noise?
Since these copy prevention things work by adding deliberate errors or noise in the datastream, any technique which worked for that would probably also work to 'restore' a genuinely damaged CD. I think you could successfully argue that your copying technique was a restoration technique and it was not solely targetted at breaking this copy-prevention. What do you think?