The information wants to be free crowd isn't a bunch of absolutists - we recognize that there must be limits
And with one fell swoop, the logic of your entire argument is blown to itty bitty bits.
By saying "there must be limits", you're saying "We have to draw a line SOMEwhere." But are Mp3's and this PDF document truly different? The answer is 'no'. What is an Mp3-compressed version of a RIAA artist's song? It's a piece of information which you're not supposed to have. What is the non-redacted PDF file in question? A piece of information that you're not supposed to have.
"But QuarterSauce, a line has to be drawn. Mp3's are just music - this affect people's lives."
So do Mp3's. By partaking in Mp3's, you affect the quality of recording artists' lives (okay, okay, it's a drop in the bucket, but still a distinct point of principle). You possibly affect the quality of life for the people who are supplying you with the files; what if they get caught because they were transmitting this data to others (including you?)
So who gets to decide where the line is drawn? Who gets to say, "Well, this situation isn't dangerous enough to someone's life to be wrong, but this other situation is."
Has this non-redacted.PDF file crossed "the line" because it could threaten the lives of certain individuals? Bear with me through a ridiculously-worst-case-scenario:
Some kid gets busted for running an Mp3 site (or a warez site, or whatever). He gets fined, let's even say he has to do some jail time. His family really can't support the burden of the legal fees and penalty fine that well, and are forced to really cut back to make ends meet. In the meantime, Junior is having trouble finding a job because he's a convicted criminal. Mom and Dad have to continue supporting the family, and have to take second jobs. Due to the strain and general tone of things, let's say Mom suffers a heart attack, and passes away.
Downloading Mp3's just killed Mom. Heck, we could even go a morbid step further and say that Dad suffers a similar fate, and maybe just for variety Junior is so messed up by all of this that he gets hooked on drugs ond OD's.
The point of that insane fictional story is this: THERE IS REALLY NO SUCH THING AS A CLEAR LINE. You can't draw one, because for every line that's drawn, an example can be made of an exception, no matter how far-fetched.
Should this Cryptome guy have posted that document? I don't know. Should people be downloading Mp3's? Probably not. But please don't argue that "Information Wants To Be Free" doesn't apply to both situations. From a logical, principle standpoint, you can't argue that one's justified and the other's not.
If you read the beginning of the abstract, it would appear that BT doesn't have a patent on information, they have a patent on Informaton. I guess we have no choice; a legal document is a legal document. All of us who have hyperlinks that link to various pieces of Informaton have to pay up...I'm just glad all MY links link to information.
Hmmmm...someone feels awfully righteous this morning. Haiku is Japanese. Fine. Won't fight you there. But it's not some gleaming, sacred thing that's any more sacred than the limerick (good god, DON'T MAKE UP LIMERICKS! IT'S NOT FAIR TO THE IRISH!) or any other form of poetry.
Haiku on the web; Is it such a travesty? Not if you grow up.
Get over yourself. Get a sense of humor. I'll sell you some of mine for five bucks.
This isn't really a "scary possible future" situation...higher education in our country right now, especially in the Big 10 arenas, is more of a corporate machine than an educational institution.
Many college campuses are now littered with either straight-up (college sanctioned) advertisements, or cleverly disguised school activities sponsored by major name-brand corporations. "Pepsi Presents such-and-such". "Freshman All-Nighter at the Union, Sponsored by blah blah blah." And this presents no real problem to the University, since it's easy money.
At the Univeristy of Illinois, a recent contract war between Coca-Cola and Pepsico ended with Coke buying the 'pouring rights' to the campus. As a result, all non-Coca-Cola vending machines were removed from any and all college-owned or operated buildings, and replaced with new Coke machines. It is currently impossible to purchase a can of Pepsi or a 7-up on the entire campus of the U of I.
It's kind of a weird cycle - College needs money to attract better students. College gets advertising dollars from corporations to make this a reality. College gets the students, grooms them into successful adults, which allows them to recruit more students, which allows their advertising dollars to grow, and on and on and on.
And in all the corporate sponsorships and monogrammed coffee mugs, we seem to lose sight of the ideals behind higher education.
One thing to remember when pondering these grandiose discussions on what the Internet will or will not do to permanently change the nature of life is that it is a relatively young innovation.
Throughout the history of science and technology (and most noticeable in the modern era), new technology rarely if ever produces Good Things right away. When plastic was introduced as an economic production material, for instance, there was an overabundance of absolute garbage mass-produced. Inane, purposeless objects that really didn't need to happen, and that nobody really used or wanted (cigarette holders in the shape of monkeys, letter-openers that look like mermaids, and thousands of other knick-knacks), but just exploded into existence because it was cheap and easy to make them. As time went on, and the novelty of the newest, freshest, cheapest technology died away, plastic was used to very good purpose for items that WERE needed (or at least had more purpose than lawn flamingoes).
The Internet is in the same stage of infancy - experiencing an explosive growth spurt as it becomes more and more accessible to the public. Is every person who has an Internet connection a web designer? Hardly. But does that mean they won't publish websites? Hardly. And that's not necessarily a bad thing - it's a necesary step in allowing the Internet to mature into what it should (and eventually will) be. Give it a couple more years, and I think that we'll start to see a lot of these issues like IP battles work themselves out as the Net becomes regulated, or at least more firmly grounded. Jon (the guy I'm responding to) has an excellent point - all this music piracy and intellectual property infringement will end up solving itself, as it brings about faster regulation of the Net.
But it's far too early to pass judgement about the Net's ability to destroy traditional values - it hasn't even finished growing up yet.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a really great project - it has the potential to be a real poetic, inspired piece. A fantastically elegant display of the technology.
Too bad it's gonna wind up in some millionaire's living room hanging on a wall.
Wait just a minute.
.PDF file crossed "the line" because it could threaten the lives of certain individuals? Bear with me through a ridiculously-worst-case-scenario:
The information wants to be free crowd isn't a bunch of absolutists - we recognize that there must be limits
And with one fell swoop, the logic of your entire argument is blown to itty bitty bits.
By saying "there must be limits", you're saying "We have to draw a line SOMEwhere." But are Mp3's and this PDF document truly different? The answer is 'no'. What is an Mp3-compressed version of a RIAA artist's song? It's a piece of information which you're not supposed to have. What is the non-redacted PDF file in question? A piece of information that you're not supposed to have.
"But QuarterSauce, a line has to be drawn. Mp3's are just music - this affect people's lives."
So do Mp3's. By partaking in Mp3's, you affect the quality of recording artists' lives (okay, okay, it's a drop in the bucket, but still a distinct point of principle). You possibly affect the quality of life for the people who are supplying you with the files; what if they get caught because they were transmitting this data to others (including you?)
So who gets to decide where the line is drawn? Who gets to say, "Well, this situation isn't dangerous enough to someone's life to be wrong, but this other situation is."
Has this non-redacted
Some kid gets busted for running an Mp3 site (or a warez site, or whatever). He gets fined, let's even say he has to do some jail time. His family really can't support the burden of the legal fees and penalty fine that well, and are forced to really cut back to make ends meet. In the meantime, Junior is having trouble finding a job because he's a convicted criminal. Mom and Dad have to continue supporting the family, and have to take second jobs. Due to the strain and general tone of things, let's say Mom suffers a heart attack, and passes away.
Downloading Mp3's just killed Mom. Heck, we could even go a morbid step further and say that Dad suffers a similar fate, and maybe just for variety Junior is so messed up by all of this that he gets hooked on drugs ond OD's.
The point of that insane fictional story is this: THERE IS REALLY NO SUCH THING AS A CLEAR LINE. You can't draw one, because for every line that's drawn, an example can be made of an exception, no matter how far-fetched.
Should this Cryptome guy have posted that document? I don't know. Should people be downloading Mp3's? Probably not. But please don't argue that "Information Wants To Be Free" doesn't apply to both situations. From a logical, principle standpoint, you can't argue that one's justified and the other's not.
If you read the beginning of the abstract, it would appear that BT doesn't have a patent on information, they have a patent on Informaton. I guess we have no choice; a legal document is a legal document. All of us who have hyperlinks that link to various pieces of Informaton have to pay up...I'm just glad all MY links link to information.
Hmmmm...someone feels awfully righteous this morning. Haiku is Japanese. Fine. Won't fight you there. But it's not some gleaming, sacred thing that's any more sacred than the limerick (good god, DON'T MAKE UP LIMERICKS! IT'S NOT FAIR TO THE IRISH!) or any other form of poetry.
Haiku on the web; Is it such a travesty? Not if you grow up.
Get over yourself. Get a sense of humor. I'll sell you some of mine for five bucks.
This isn't really a "scary possible future" situation...higher education in our country right now, especially in the Big 10 arenas, is more of a corporate machine than an educational institution.
Many college campuses are now littered with either straight-up (college sanctioned) advertisements, or cleverly disguised school activities sponsored by major name-brand corporations. "Pepsi Presents such-and-such". "Freshman All-Nighter at the Union, Sponsored by blah blah blah." And this presents no real problem to the University, since it's easy money.
At the Univeristy of Illinois, a recent contract war between Coca-Cola and Pepsico ended with Coke buying the 'pouring rights' to the campus. As a result, all non-Coca-Cola vending machines were removed from any and all college-owned or operated buildings, and replaced with new Coke machines. It is currently impossible to purchase a can of Pepsi or a 7-up on the entire campus of the U of I.
It's kind of a weird cycle - College needs money to attract better students. College gets advertising dollars from corporations to make this a reality. College gets the students, grooms them into successful adults, which allows them to recruit more students, which allows their advertising dollars to grow, and on and on and on.
And in all the corporate sponsorships and monogrammed coffee mugs, we seem to lose sight of the ideals behind higher education.
One thing to remember when pondering these grandiose discussions on what the Internet will or will not do to permanently change the nature of life is that it is a relatively young innovation.
Throughout the history of science and technology (and most noticeable in the modern era), new technology rarely if ever produces Good Things right away. When plastic was introduced as an economic production material, for instance, there was an overabundance of absolute garbage mass-produced. Inane, purposeless objects that really didn't need to happen, and that nobody really used or wanted (cigarette holders in the shape of monkeys, letter-openers that look like mermaids, and thousands of other knick-knacks), but just exploded into existence because it was cheap and easy to make them. As time went on, and the novelty of the newest, freshest, cheapest technology died away, plastic was used to very good purpose for items that WERE needed (or at least had more purpose than lawn flamingoes).
The Internet is in the same stage of infancy - experiencing an explosive growth spurt as it becomes more and more accessible to the public. Is every person who has an Internet connection a web designer? Hardly. But does that mean they won't publish websites? Hardly. And that's not necessarily a bad thing - it's a necesary step in allowing the Internet to mature into what it should (and eventually will) be. Give it a couple more years, and I think that we'll start to see a lot of these issues like IP battles work themselves out as the Net becomes regulated, or at least more firmly grounded. Jon (the guy I'm responding to) has an excellent point - all this music piracy and intellectual property infringement will end up solving itself, as it brings about faster regulation of the Net.
But it's far too early to pass judgement about the Net's ability to destroy traditional values - it hasn't even finished growing up yet.