But that wasn't my point. My point is that in any situation where it comes down to a civilian's word against a cop in a court of law, the cop will come out the winner, every time, no questions asked.
Not anymore, at least not in Los Angeles:
The conviction of three Los Angeles police officers on corruption charges represents a watershed for the city, legal observers said Wednesday, because it signals that jurors here no longer automatically give credence to the men and women who are sworn to serve and protect.
"In Los Angeles, a badge is no longer a shield," said Santa Monica defense lawyer Gigi Gordon, who has followed the Rampart case closely.
Frankly, I see it as a slap in the face to Mozilla, since all their volunteered hard work has created a product that will line Netscape's pockets.
I am somewhat... surprised by this comment. Only now you worry about the economic free-rider problem? Why? Because a corporation is going to economically benefit from the unpaid code contributions of individuals, instead of the other way around?
To a greater or lesser degree, depending upon the license, all open-source and free software projects "suffer" from the economic free-rider "problem." People get to benefit from the work of others without being required, by either property law or contract, to pay for it (though it is hoped they will be good members of the community and contribute something back). That is the point. At the end of the day, open-source and free software are about sharing and cooperation.
To at least some extent, the world of open-source and free software is a world of, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." I am not saying that to red-bait, or to imply that because it is communist in the classical sense, it is bad. I happen to think it is wonderfully idealistic, cooperative and social. I think it generally brings out the best in people. However, I also think is important to understand that in any such system there are going to be people who take a "free ride" (not, for the reasons stated below, that I think Netscape has done so), and not contribute back what you believe they ought to have.
If you don't like the way people are responding to and compensating you for your labor, there is a simple solution. Negotiate a contract before you perform the labor, so at least people know what they are expected and required to pay (be it in money, compensatory labor, or even praise) ahead of time. If you don't like the way people are responding to and compensating you for the software you code, the solution is equally simple. Use a proprietary license, rely on copyright law, and license it to them.
To complain about the behavior in this context appears to be particularly hypocritical and myopic. As I understand it, Netscape contributed the initial code base (as much as many may want to complain about it, it was the starting point), as well as a large number of full-time professional coders. Further, everyone knew from the beginning that Netscape was free to fold whatever they wanted from Mozilla into its proprietary Netscape browser. And under these circumstances we complain that Netscape benefits from the unpaid work of others? Please.
According to the VinylVideo website, VinylVideo made its public debut during April 1998 at the exhibition "Sub-techs: The New Post-Digital Sculpture" curated by Charles Gute at The Lab in San Francisco.
For those interested in seeing VinlyVideo in action, the VinylVideo website states:
VinylVideo(TM) is part of the inaugural exhibit "Scenes of Sounds" at the Tang Museum, Saratoga Springs, New York.
Special thanks to: Charles Stainback, Gayle King, Barbara Rhoades.
Location: Tang Teaching Museum at Skidmore College, NY-12866 Saratoga Springs, New York, tel ++1/518/580 5000
Opening: Friday, October 27th, 18:00
Run: October 28th to January 28th, Tuesday to Sunday 11:00 to 17:00
ABC News has an interesting article about Vinyl Video. Quoting the article: "Picture a TV sitting next to a turntable. Then imagine placing the needle on a record, but rather than just hearing sounds, you see an image on the screen. Lift the needle, and the monitor goes blank. Place the needle anywhere on the record, and it picks up the video at that point." Black and white, 8 fps, amplitude modulation. Each pixel is assigned a number from 0 to 256, which is assigned to a sound level. The sound is low for black, and high for white. The Home Kit for playing back picture disks is only $2,000. Each set is produced as a limited edition of 10 copies plus 2 Artist's copies. Prices range from $6,000 to $12,000 for each three record group. Titles include 'Guinea Pig Massacre.'
- MSNBC:
* Down frequently
* Eventually became updated hourly
* Took a while for the map to update
MSNBC recognizes it has serious problems. The site states:
"Technical problems at MSNBC.com early Wednesday resulted in some users receiving outdated content about the presidential election. In other cases, users saw data and stories that conflicted with other information on the site."
See: Technical problems at MSNBC.com. [ http://www.msnbc.com/news/487256_asp.htm ] They do not know what is causing the problems, but they are working on them.
I'm surprised nobody has commented on the statement by Thomas that:
"For a long time, Linux was dominated by hackers and somewhat of a less organized group. The result is a slowdown in innovation and a reluctance in enterprises to accept this solution," he said. "This has to grow up."
The fact that Linux has been "dominated" by hackers is, according to Thomas, a problem? That fact has slowed innovation?
Sorry, but without the hackers there would be no Linux as we know it, much less innovation. Who else was going to do it? Who else, in fact, did it? Not to denigrate the current contributions of IBM, et al., but they were late to the party, and came only when a large amount of value had already been created.
Since the domination by hackers has, to date, led to a "slowdown in innovation," let's see what Turbolinux has contributed back to the community. Let us consider EnFuzion 6.0. According to the EnFuzion(TM)Software LICENSE AGREEMENT:
"The EnFuzion(TM) software (the "Software") is a proprietary product of TurboLinux. * * * You may not copy (except as expressly permitted in Section 2), modify, or create derivative works of the Software."
The Advanced Traffic Manager application, turboclusterd, will be released under the TurboLinux Software License. Source code for this component will not be released and redistribution of this component is not allowed.
What "innovation" has Turbolinux contributed back to the community? My question is not rhetorical. I don't know.
And what does, "[t]his has to grow up" mean? Centralized control? Linux has a benevolent dictator. Perhaps corporate control?
This raises the following interesting and scary issue: What happens if and when a child's ability to haxx0r censor software is occurs at a younger and younger age compared to his or her ability to learn about and deal with messy issues such as sex, bad people who prey on children, etc.?
By that I mean, it may be the case that soon sharp 10 and 11 year olds will be able to haxx0r censor software, if they aren't already. Can such children really be educated and prepared for what they will find on the net? This question is not rhetorical, I honestly do not know. What do you think?
But that's the real trick, isn't it? No filtering software can deliver this, and will block a bunch of ancillary stuff.
The choice is not necessarily binary -- either/or. Because current filtering software censors breast cancer sites is no reason to just give up and say 7 year olds must have public library access to the entire net, animated blow jobs and all. One does the best one can.
One possible solution is Open Source filtering software. That is, no secret lists. If you are going to place filtering software on a public library computer, it should be Open Source so the community can make informed decisions. If the breast cancer site is initially on list, look at the list, have the debate, take it off. Refine the list. Make it what it should be.
Again, I'm assuming toggled access -- i.e., unfettered net access for adults, filtered access for minors.
I'm not sure this is true even if the child is of an age where they are educable. I think education is a necessary, but by itself insufficient, requirement to properly protect a child in this situation. Certainly, there are children who although 15 or 16 and educable and educated, think they know more than they know, and believe they understand the evil of the world far more than they do, and get themselves into trouble. [I once resembled that remark.:)] A parent can properly try to protect even such children.:)
Perhaps far more importantly, there are children who are exposed to the net who are not educable in all of the ways and evil of the world. Nor, I hope, should they be. Must innocence die at age 4?:( Leave aside the 16 year old for a moment. Must 7, 8, and 9 years olds have sadomasochism explained to them before they go onto the net, because somebody refuses to toggle filter (i.e., open access for adults, filtered access for minors) the public library terminal?
The question in this case is how the 'dominatrix' was brought up. Was she given advice on sex as and when she needed it or was she 'protected' from it all and thus didn't have the knowledge she needed to recognise this dirty old man for what he was. But as she's only 21 she'll probably grow out of it. Here in the UK we have the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe and the worst sex education. You give kids the knowledge they need and the chances are they're less likely to get into trouble. Hiding them from sex will only make them more curious - easy prey for the some of the lower-life forms that infest some chatrooms.
I agree with pretty much everything you say. However, even if a parent does provide his 16 year old daughter with good advice, guidance and information about sex, I can understand why the parent would want to keep his daughter away from 40+ year old men who are into either sadism or masochism, and who are seeking either an underage dominatrix or slave.
Education is part of the answer, certainly. But keeping a young person away from the "lower-life forms that infest some chatrooms" may also be a part.
I hope she does grow out of it. Right now, it has done her harm.:(
Currently, my wife or I are with them while on the computer. As they get older, they get censorware on their computer. Once they can haxx0r it out of their box, they are free to surf where they please.
While I generally applaud your post, your last sentence quoted above troubles me. Please do not fall into the trap of believing the fact a child has the intelligence and technical ability to "haxx0r" censorware out of the box necessarily implies the child has the maturity to deal with all of the crap on the net.
Please let me give you an example. I have a friend who has a bright, intelligent, wonderful 14 year old daughter. She is clearly capable of "haxx0ring" any censorware out of the box. Indeed, the fact she has more computer skills than her parents has become something of a family joke. Nonetheless, there is stuff on the net -- and perhaps far more importantly, people -- that she really isn't mature enough to deal with.
Please don't underestimate the crap the net brings into your home. Please don't underestimate the easy and economic access children now have to all sorts of crap that there were previously rarely and infrequently exposed to.
Another example is a young lady I know who thinks she is an online "dominatrix." She is now 21. She was started down this path at age 16 by a man in his 40s. Did that happen prior to the net? Of course, but not so easily, and not so frequently.
A simple solution to the problem is a hardware key that is issued to adults at the library desk. If your ID says your over 18, you get the dongle that tells the computer to let you see what you want on the terminal. If you are underage, you get censorship. Sorry but that's the breaks.
But at 7 years old, should my children be confronted with full frontal internet?
At 7 years old, should you be the one to decide whether my children are "confronted with full frontal internet?"
Assuming ultimate and final control by parents, the question is what should be the default position for unaccompanied 7, 8, 9 year olds, etc. I see two possibilities:
Any unaccompanied 7 year old gets unfettered access to "full frontal internet," including banner ads of animated oral sex. If any parent has a problem with this, then the burden is on the parent to accompany his or her child to the library and monitor his or her internet access.
Any unaccompanied 7 year old gets only filtered content, the filtering perhaps being based on what he or she could legally purchase at the local magazine store. If any parent has a problem with this, then the parent can come into the library with the child and obtain internet access to anything the parent deems appropriate for his or her child.
This is analagous to the default standard society has long had for reading material for years. A 7 year old cannot legally buy a copy of Playboy, or Hustler, or walk into a porn shop and buy a copy of Bondage Babes. If you want your child (be her or she 7, 14, 16 or any other age)to have a copy of Playboy, Hustler, etc., you simply need to go buy the copy yourself.
Now let me ask you three questions.
First, what do you really think ought to be the rule?
As a corollary to the first question, do we really want to adopt a rule where the burden is on the parent who does not want his seven year old to see banner ads of animated oral sex to accompany his child to the library each and every time?
Finally, what do you think, as a matter of political reality, the rule will wind up being?
Myself, I have no belief this will be the "wave of the future". There's simply no market for it. Sure, they'll try.
I believe there may be a market for it. Why? There will not be a market for anything else. This will happen, if it does, for two resons: (1) the manufacture and sale (or as I predict above, perhaps mandatory lease and/or license) of anything that does not have the hardware decryption chip will be illegal; and (2) eventually, nothing else will work. Want to watch broadcast TV? Encrypted. Want to watch a new DVD? Encrypted. Want to listen to new music? Encrypted.
All that is required for change number (2) above is a format change. Sure, there will be old CDs, tapes, and LPs with music, as well as old videotapes with movies. But want anything new? All on "improved" DVD, or broadband feed, which require the legally mandated hardware encryption chip.
Will there be leakage? Of course, but nothing like what there is now, making copyright enforcement much easier and more economical than it is now.
The DMCA really really sucks, but that one seems destined to be destroyed in the Supreme Court. I'm pretty confident.
Could I ask why? My question is neither rhetorical, nor intended as flame bait. I would really like to know. Why are you confident? What do you think the Constitutional problem with the DMCA is? What clause of the Consitution does it violate? What is the relevant case law?
But when the federal government starts mandating total copy protection of media broadcast on the open spectrum, the property of the people, I feel much more betrayed than I did before. The Executive branch, much harder to control than the legislative, is taking away an entire chunk of property that used to belong to the people as a whole, and giving it wholesale to a small handful of very large companies.
I may be mistaken, but I don't believe the public property -- in this case, the spectrum -- was given away. It was sold. The media companies paid for it, and the people (through
their government) received the money. Now, you might argue they did not pay enough, but they did pay.
What is the FCC going to do when someone goes to radioshack and builts himself a receiver from off the shelf parts, writes the linux drivers for it, then uses it to pipe the signal to a file? Ban people from shopping at radio shack and building PC because they can get around copyright. What about the fact that today, any watermarking or encryption can be circumevented, even if by brute force (piping the SVGA signal to a file)?
This is just stupid.
No, it is not "just stupid."
I don't doubt your ability to go to radioshack and build yourself a receiver from off the shelf parts, write linux drivers for it, then uses it to pipe the signal to a file. However, the vast majority of people would not be able to do that, nor would they invest the time and effort to do so.
There is a fundemental economic and mass market difference between hardware and software means of circumventing encryption and copy control mechanisms. Software means of defeating encryption and circumventing copy control are, once discovered and implimented, themselves digitally reproduceable and easily and economically distributed over the internet. Obviously, hardware means are not.
There is also a vast difference between the law enforcement costs associated with policing and preventing software vs. hardware means of defeating encryption and circumventing copy control mechanisms. Obviously, it is now very hard for the "authorities" to track down and take down every copy of DeCSS. It would not be nearly be so difficult for them to get somebody to whom you sold an "illegal" receiver to roll over on you. If making "illegal" DVDs is difficult, costly, and therefore infrequent, then it is not all that costly for law enforcement to track any illegal DVDs you produce back to you.
This might the long term solution for owners and defenders of intellectual property. One possible future: (1) all commercially, or at least corporately produced, data will be encrypted; and (2) a new law would require all future information display devices for different types of data (music, photographs, video, whatever) to have built-in hardware decryption.
There are those of you who will say, "so what, it has to be decrypted at some point in order to be displayed, and at that point I'll just attach a wire and run it to my VCR, CDR, TIVO, computer, etc., etc." You might be able to, but the vast, vast majority would never be able to, nor would they be inclined to void thier warranties (and perhaps risk future civil or criminal penalities) for opening their box. There is a fundemental economic and mass market difference between hardware and software means of circumventing encryption and copy control mechanisms. Software means of defeating encryption and circumventing copy control are, once discovered and implimented, themselves digitally reproduceable and easily and economically distributed over the internet. Obviously, hardware means are not.
Another possible further legal response to the threat posed by the internet to intellectual property would involve:
A governmentally enforced licensed hardware regime, or leased hardware model where a term of the lease (backed by draconian penalties) is that you cannot open the box. In the future, you wouldn't be able to purchase -- actually own -- actually own title to -- anwhere or at any price, a TV, Stereo, VCR, Computer, TIVO, or other information display device. You could only lease and/or license, one, subject to the contractual and/or property right - tort and/or property right - criminal law requirements set forth above. AND/OR
A new equivilant to the DMCA that applies to hardware -- again, makign it illegal to open the box.
Somebody please mod this up. I laughed my ass off. The only weird thing is that what he describes is probably more intuitive than what is actually required.
If you don't work for them any longer then you don't have to sign anything period. You signed a contract at the start of your tenure with them and that covers this, you are under no obligation to continue to sign agreements.
This is not necessarily true. Depending on how the IP contract was written, he (i.e., the submitter) may, or may not, have a continuing, post-employment obligation to sign the pertinent documents. Continuing post employment duties are not uncommon (e.g., the duty, post-employment, to not disclose trade secrets). He really should see a lawyer.
He, the submitter, faces a possible claim for damages for lost patent revenues if, allegedly because of his refusal to sign or delay in signing, either: (a) his former employer loses the application (e.g., because of intervening prior art afer his refusal but but prior to the application); or (b) another entity is able to use the invention for a substantial period of time, gaining sigificiant revenue, before the patent application is finally approved.
Sigh... forgive me for following up my own post, but I see where I made the rather stupid mistake of missing or blanking out on the submitter's initial statement:
A company I used to work for....
Still, my advice still stands -- see an attorney. And please to not follow the advice some people are giving that you have nothing to worry about because you are no longer employed by your former employer. You could be sued for breach of contract. Can you imagine the amount of damages your employer could claim in lost patent revenues if, allegedly because of your refusal to sign or delay in signing, either: (a) your former employer loses the application (e.g., because of intervening prior art afer your refusal but but prior to the application); or (b) another entity is able to use the invention for a substantial period of time, gaining sigificiant revenue, before the patent application is finally approved? See an attorney.
If you are thinking of not signing the necessary patent documents, please, please see an attorney first. See an attorney even if you are thinking of signing the documents, if you feel you are doing so under pressure.
Also please consider the possibility that you will not have to resign, be fired, or otherwise face major negative employment consequences if, after receiving advice of counsel, you deline to sign. This is because your statement:
My IP agreement with the company forces me to sign over any inventions,
is actually quite vague. You may believe your employment agreement requires you to sign patent applications. Your employer may tell you that it does. Hell, your employer may honestly believe that it does. None of these things mean that your employment agreement legally does require you to sign the pertinent documents. It may, or it may not. See an attorney.
Finally, you might also want to consider a possibility that will be unpopular on Slashdot -- i.e., that in seeking the broadest possible patent protection your employer does not have any sort of evil, nefarious, or predatory purpose. Your employer's purpose may be entirely defensive. Unfortunately, given the rules of the game right now, many companies believe that they are *forced* to be in a patent arms race in order to protect themselves, even if they don't have any "offensive" intention themselves. In game theory terms, it is a classical Prisoner's Dilemma. Sadly, the best way to ensure that others don't get a particular patent is to get it yourself. Perhaps more importantly, one way to prevent an competitor from getting a related patent is to establish the prior art by getting one yourself. Finally, sometimes the best way to deter a claim for patent infringement is to have ammuntion -- i.e., patents -- with which you can counter-claim.
I'm glad most AOL'ers are partitioned off to a 'safe' corner of the internet away from me. AIM blows hard anyhow, I can't see why anyone would use it.
The pseudo-sophisitated, let's try to show how smart I am answer -- network effects.
The practical answer: I use AIM because that is what many of my friends use. Some are on American online, many others are not. (Interestingly, Earthlink distributes its own version of the client. "Earthlink America Online.") They can't or won't use IRC for various reasons:
IRC is too difficult for them to learn, even with a graphical client like Mirc or Kirc.
IRC requires too much prior negotiation and agreement. Where is everybody? EFFnet? Undernet? Dalnet? Slashnet?:) AIM is simple that way -- everyone is "there."
IRC does not have the same functionality. Don't laugh.:) I mean simple, mindless functionality. You have to pay attention. You can't be at work, have it run in the system tray or otherwise in the background, and have something flash or pop-up when, and only when, a friend comes on or sends you a message. Or perhaps you can -- except nobody knows how to do it.
And, for the circular but nonetheless real reason that all of their friends use AIM.
The article is discussing the fact that we are making the GUI so easy to use that the average user (NOT the power user) have no clue what they're actually doing. For example, the university provides a link to an FTP client to allow users to transfer files between the University system and their home systems. The users click on the link then complain that "I clicked, the computer downloaded something but then nothing happened. Now what do I do?"
There are at least a couple possible ways to look at this problem. The first way is to believe that making the GUI too easy leads to the average user having no idea what he is actually doing.
A possible second way of looking at the problem is say that the GUI was not easy to use, but obviously insufficient. The interface was defective. Upon initiation of the download the program should have opened up a dialog box asking where the average user wanted to store the file, said box containing a default directory or folder ("Downloads") that can be changed. After the completion of the download, the program should have opened up a dialog box and asked, what do you want to do? If the dowloaded file is an executable -- like a Mircrosoft Word file (Lord, what isn't an executable file these days?) -- the default is to run a virus checker. If the downloaded file is a jpg, the default is to open it, etc.
Perhaps the more unfundemental issue is defining what the average user is "actually doing?" What does the average user really need to know? And if your GUI is good enough, doesn't the average user need to know less? Surely, we don't want the average user to worry about inodes. Perhaps the question is, where to we put the burden for the required "intelligence" to operate the machine -- in the person, or in the machine.
Another example. Perhaps the use of rpms and debs to install Linux programs leads to dumb users who don't really understand what they are doing? Perhaps the only way to get make sure the average user really knows what he is actually doing is to force him to use tarballs. But there are those who feel that you really, really don't know what you are doing unless you can make and compile your own programs. Perhaps we should force people to do that? Which leads me to my next, and most important point.
The question isn't "Are GUI's restricting the power users from getting at the guts of the machine?" The issue is "Is making GUI's so easy to use a good idea?"
I would argue that it doesn't matter if you, as a developer, designer or coder believe it is, in the long run, "a good idea." In a competitive market enviroment you really don't have a choice. Well, I guess you do -- you can choose to give people what: (a) they want; or (b) what you think they ought to have -- what you think would be best for them in the long run -- even if they, in their stupidity and lack of forsight, chose to ignore you in droves. The fact is that if people want an easy to use interface, and you don't give it to them, somebody else will. Up to now that somebody else has been either Apple or Microsoft.
As a practical matter, it is meaningful for Prof. Dilger to talk about what would be "good" for his consumers only because his consumers are students and the school has a large degree of control over what they do regarding computing. If the school wants to teach students to really know what they are doing, it can ban all GUIs from the computer network and force people to use shell accounts, at least internally. That is not the case in the real world. The sad truth is that if you want your program to be succesful with the masses, you can't affort to give them what you think will be educational and/or good for them in the long run. You have to give them what they want.
One of the problems is that changes are made to the OS at a fundamental level in order to (theoretically) make the "newbie" level easier to use. One example of this is moving configuration data from a text config file to a database. This makes it easier to set-up a GUI front end for tweaking the config, but makes it much more difficult to change things manaually.
Is it really necessary to move configuration data to a database in order to make it easier to set up a GUI front end? Wouldn't it be sufficient if the configuration text files: (a) had a consistent format; and (b) were all found in the same place in different Linux distributions? Isn't this what the Linux Standards Base is all about?
These are not rhetorical questions. I honestly don't know. I'm just one that currently believes that making Linux friendly for newbies does not necessarily reduce the ability of experts to configure and modify it as they will.
" In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or ought not." This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems to altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention wou'd subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction between vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relation of objects, nor is perceiv'd by reason."
David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, (1888) Oxford University Press, Book III, Part I, Section I, pgs. 469-470.
Agreed. The lawyers can only prosecute legal entities or individuals; their scope does not include the internet in general. This may mean that the large or identifiable organizations partaking in "questionable" activities will dissapear, but this should not hinder the average user's ability to transfer whatever, with whomever, they want.
Please don't believe this. Please. It is a matter of incentive, subpeonas, and economics.
Again, I would point to the history of the usenet newsgroup alt.religion.scientology regarding the Scientology secret scriptures. ISPs subpoened, anonymous remailers intimidated, individuals subpeoned and sued, at least one bankrupted.
You might respond, persuasively, that the newsgroup had maybe 100 or so people participating, while the net has millions. Perhaps your view of salvation is fast pipe DSL --cable modem -- T1 peer to peer networking among millions of people sharing mp3s, films, books, win2k, whatever. Perhaps you think that the authorities could never prosecute everyone. I predict that owners of IP might adopt a modified IRS model -- a few, high profile, devestating lawsuits -- perhaps punitive damages or even criminal prosecutions for wilfull copyright violations. They would seed the system with spies who download stuff, and then launch the supoenas -- phone records, ISP log on data. Get some favorable, seemingly harmless legislation through congress requiring the retention of such data for a period of, say, 5 years, for the purpose of suit. Perhaps such legislation would even have strengthened safeguards re: probable cause -- which will always be satisfied give the prima facie case establised by the recorded illicit download.
Please don't get me wrong. I am not saying that the situation is hopeless, or that the IP owners and their lawyers will inevitably win every argument, or that technical solutions that increase the cost of enforcement are without merit. Not at all. Just please don't rely only on technical solutions, and please don't assume that technical solutions alone will keep you safe.
Unfortunately, while technical ability is very important, you also need lawyers, lobbyists, politicians and organization.
(I was attempted to refer to Warren Zevon's song "Laywer's Guns and Money," but I don't want to give anyone any bad ideas.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Not anymore, at least not in Los Angeles: Los Angeles Times: 'A Badge Is No Longer a Shield'
See also:
Fox News: LAPD Convictions Mean More Prosecutions Likely
ABC News: Chief: More Rampart Cases to Come
CNN: Three LAPD officers convicted in corruption scandal
MSNBC: 3 LAPD officers guilty of conspiracy
CBS News: Rampart Probe Rolls On
I am somewhat... surprised by this comment. Only now you worry about the economic free-rider problem? Why? Because a corporation is going to economically benefit from the unpaid code contributions of individuals, instead of the other way around?
To a greater or lesser degree, depending upon the license, all open-source and free software projects "suffer" from the economic free-rider "problem." People get to benefit from the work of others without being required, by either property law or contract, to pay for it (though it is hoped they will be good members of the community and contribute something back). That is the point. At the end of the day, open-source and free software are about sharing and cooperation.
To at least some extent, the world of open-source and free software is a world of, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." I am not saying that to red-bait, or to imply that because it is communist in the classical sense, it is bad. I happen to think it is wonderfully idealistic, cooperative and social. I think it generally brings out the best in people. However, I also think is important to understand that in any such system there are going to be people who take a "free ride" (not, for the reasons stated below, that I think Netscape has done so), and not contribute back what you believe they ought to have.
If you don't like the way people are responding to and compensating you for your labor, there is a simple solution. Negotiate a contract before you perform the labor, so at least people know what they are expected and required to pay (be it in money, compensatory labor, or even praise) ahead of time. If you don't like the way people are responding to and compensating you for the software you code, the solution is equally simple. Use a proprietary license, rely on copyright law, and license it to them.
To complain about the behavior in this context appears to be particularly hypocritical and myopic. As I understand it, Netscape contributed the initial code base (as much as many may want to complain about it, it was the starting point), as well as a large number of full-time professional coders. Further, everyone knew from the beginning that Netscape was free to fold whatever they wanted from Mozilla into its proprietary Netscape browser. And under these circumstances we complain that Netscape benefits from the unpaid work of others? Please.
According to the VinylVideo website, VinylVideo made its public debut during April 1998 at the exhibition "Sub-techs: The New Post-Digital Sculpture" curated by Charles Gute at The Lab in San Francisco.
For those interested in seeing VinlyVideo in action, the VinylVideo website states:
ABC News has an interesting article about Vinyl Video. Quoting the article: "Picture a TV sitting next to a turntable. Then imagine placing the needle on a record, but rather than just hearing sounds, you see an image on the screen. Lift the needle, and the monitor goes blank. Place the needle anywhere on the record, and it picks up the video at that point." Black and white, 8 fps, amplitude modulation. Each pixel is assigned a number from 0 to 256, which is assigned to a sound level. The sound is low for black, and high for white. The Home Kit for playing back picture disks is only $2,000. Each set is produced as a limited edition of 10 copies plus 2 Artist's copies. Prices range from $6,000 to $12,000 for each three record group. Titles include 'Guinea Pig Massacre.'
MSNBC recognizes it has serious problems. The site states: See: Technical problems at MSNBC.com. [ http://www.msnbc.com/news/487256_asp.htm ] They do not know what is causing the problems, but they are working on them.
I'm surprised nobody has commented on the statement by Thomas that: The fact that Linux has been "dominated" by hackers is, according to Thomas, a problem? That fact has slowed innovation?
Sorry, but without the hackers there would be no Linux as we know it, much less innovation. Who else was going to do it? Who else, in fact, did it? Not to denigrate the current contributions of IBM, et al., but they were late to the party, and came only when a large amount of value had already been created.
Since the domination by hackers has, to date, led to a "slowdown in innovation," let's see what Turbolinux has contributed back to the community. Let us consider EnFuzion 6.0. According to the EnFuzion(TM)Software LICENSE AGREEMENT: How about TurboCluster Server 4.0. According to section 1.16 of the TurboCluster Server 4.0 FAQ: What "innovation" has Turbolinux contributed back to the community? My question is not rhetorical. I don't know.
And what does, "[t]his has to grow up" mean? Centralized control? Linux has a benevolent dictator. Perhaps corporate control?
This raises the following interesting and scary issue: What happens if and when a child's ability to haxx0r censor software is occurs at a younger and younger age compared to his or her ability to learn about and deal with messy issues such as sex, bad people who prey on children, etc.?
By that I mean, it may be the case that soon sharp 10 and 11 year olds will be able to haxx0r censor software, if they aren't already. Can such children really be educated and prepared for what they will find on the net? This question is not rhetorical, I honestly do not know. What do you think?
The choice is not necessarily binary -- either/or. Because current filtering software censors breast cancer sites is no reason to just give up and say 7 year olds must have public library access to the entire net, animated blow jobs and all. One does the best one can.
One possible solution is Open Source filtering software. That is, no secret lists. If you are going to place filtering software on a public library computer, it should be Open Source so the community can make informed decisions. If the breast cancer site is initially on list, look at the list, have the debate, take it off. Refine the list. Make it what it should be.
Again, I'm assuming toggled access -- i.e., unfettered net access for adults, filtered access for minors.
I'm not sure this is true even if the child is of an age where they are educable. I think education is a necessary, but by itself insufficient, requirement to properly protect a child in this situation. Certainly, there are children who although 15 or 16 and educable and educated, think they know more than they know, and believe they understand the evil of the world far more than they do, and get themselves into trouble. [I once resembled that remark.
Perhaps far more importantly, there are children who are exposed to the net who are not educable in all of the ways and evil of the world. Nor, I hope, should they be. Must innocence die at age 4?
I agree with pretty much everything you say. However, even if a parent does provide his 16 year old daughter with good advice, guidance and information about sex, I can understand why the parent would want to keep his daughter away from 40+ year old men who are into either sadism or masochism, and who are seeking either an underage dominatrix or slave.
Education is part of the answer, certainly. But keeping a young person away from the "lower-life forms that infest some chatrooms" may also be a part.
I hope she does grow out of it. Right now, it has done her harm.
While I generally applaud your post, your last sentence quoted above troubles me. Please do not fall into the trap of believing the fact a child has the intelligence and technical ability to "haxx0r" censorware out of the box necessarily implies the child has the maturity to deal with all of the crap on the net.
Please let me give you an example. I have a friend who has a bright, intelligent, wonderful 14 year old daughter. She is clearly capable of "haxx0ring" any censorware out of the box. Indeed, the fact she has more computer skills than her parents has become something of a family joke. Nonetheless, there is stuff on the net -- and perhaps far more importantly, people -- that she really isn't mature enough to deal with.
Please don't underestimate the crap the net brings into your home. Please don't underestimate the easy and economic access children now have to all sorts of crap that there were previously rarely and infrequently exposed to.
Another example is a young lady I know who thinks she is an online "dominatrix." She is now 21. She was started down this path at age 16 by a man in his 40s. Did that happen prior to the net? Of course, but not so easily, and not so frequently.
Assuming ultimate and final control by parents, the question is what should be the default position for unaccompanied 7, 8, 9 year olds, etc. I see two possibilities:
- Any unaccompanied 7 year old gets unfettered access to "full frontal internet," including banner ads of animated oral sex. If any parent has a problem with this, then the burden is on the parent to accompany his or her child to the library and monitor his or her internet access.
- Any unaccompanied 7 year old gets only filtered content, the filtering perhaps being based on what he or she could legally purchase at the local magazine store. If any parent has a problem with this, then the parent can come into the library with the child and obtain internet access to anything the parent deems appropriate for his or her child.
Now let me ask you three questions.This is analagous to the default standard society has long had for reading material for years. A 7 year old cannot legally buy a copy of Playboy, or Hustler, or walk into a porn shop and buy a copy of Bondage Babes. If you want your child (be her or she 7, 14, 16 or any other age)to have a copy of Playboy, Hustler, etc., you simply need to go buy the copy yourself.
First, what do you really think ought to be the rule?
As a corollary to the first question, do we really want to adopt a rule where the burden is on the parent who does not want his seven year old to see banner ads of animated oral sex to accompany his child to the library each and every time?
Finally, what do you think, as a matter of political reality, the rule will wind up being?
I believe there may be a market for it. Why? There will not be a market for anything else. This will happen, if it does, for two resons: (1) the manufacture and sale (or as I predict above, perhaps mandatory lease and/or license) of anything that does not have the hardware decryption chip will be illegal; and (2) eventually, nothing else will work. Want to watch broadcast TV? Encrypted. Want to watch a new DVD? Encrypted. Want to listen to new music? Encrypted.
All that is required for change number (2) above is a format change. Sure, there will be old CDs, tapes, and LPs with music, as well as old videotapes with movies. But want anything new? All on "improved" DVD, or broadband feed, which require the legally mandated hardware encryption chip.
Will there be leakage? Of course, but nothing like what there is now, making copyright enforcement much easier and more economical than it is now.
Could I ask why? My question is neither rhetorical, nor intended as flame bait. I would really like to know. Why are you confident? What do you think the Constitutional problem with the DMCA is? What clause of the Consitution does it violate? What is the relevant case law? I may be mistaken, but I don't believe the public property -- in this case, the spectrum -- was given away. It was sold. The media companies paid for it, and the people (through their government) received the money. Now, you might argue they did not pay enough, but they did pay.
No, it is not "just stupid."
I don't doubt your ability to go to radioshack and build yourself a receiver from off the shelf parts, write linux drivers for it, then uses it to pipe the signal to a file. However, the vast majority of people would not be able to do that, nor would they invest the time and effort to do so.
There is a fundemental economic and mass market difference between hardware and software means of circumventing encryption and copy control mechanisms. Software means of defeating encryption and circumventing copy control are, once discovered and implimented, themselves digitally reproduceable and easily and economically distributed over the internet. Obviously, hardware means are not.
There is also a vast difference between the law enforcement costs associated with policing and preventing software vs. hardware means of defeating encryption and circumventing copy control mechanisms. Obviously, it is now very hard for the "authorities" to track down and take down every copy of DeCSS. It would not be nearly be so difficult for them to get somebody to whom you sold an "illegal" receiver to roll over on you. If making "illegal" DVDs is difficult, costly, and therefore infrequent, then it is not all that costly for law enforcement to track any illegal DVDs you produce back to you.
This appears to be a special case of the Trusted Client issue. There is a wonderful article on Technocrat.net entitled, Is "Trusted Client" the Wave of the Future?
This might the long term solution for owners and defenders of intellectual property. One possible future: (1) all commercially, or at least corporately produced, data will be encrypted; and (2) a new law would require all future information display devices for different types of data (music, photographs, video, whatever) to have built-in hardware decryption.
There are those of you who will say, "so what, it has to be decrypted at some point in order to be displayed, and at that point I'll just attach a wire and run it to my VCR, CDR, TIVO, computer, etc., etc." You might be able to, but the vast, vast majority would never be able to, nor would they be inclined to void thier warranties (and perhaps risk future civil or criminal penalities) for opening their box. There is a fundemental economic and mass market difference between hardware and software means of circumventing encryption and copy control mechanisms. Software means of defeating encryption and circumventing copy control are, once discovered and implimented, themselves digitally reproduceable and easily and economically distributed over the internet. Obviously, hardware means are not.
Another possible further legal response to the threat posed by the internet to intellectual property would involve:
Somebody please mod this up. I laughed my ass off. The only weird thing is that what he describes is probably more intuitive than what is actually required.
This is not necessarily true. Depending on how the IP contract was written, he (i.e., the submitter) may, or may not, have a continuing, post-employment obligation to sign the pertinent documents. Continuing post employment duties are not uncommon (e.g., the duty, post-employment, to not disclose trade secrets). He really should see a lawyer.
He, the submitter, faces a possible claim for damages for lost patent revenues if, allegedly because of his refusal to sign or delay in signing, either: (a) his former employer loses the application (e.g., because of intervening prior art afer his refusal but but prior to the application); or (b) another entity is able to use the invention for a substantial period of time, gaining sigificiant revenue, before the patent application is finally approved.
Sigh... forgive me for following up my own post, but I see where I made the rather stupid mistake of missing or blanking out on the submitter's initial statement: Still, my advice still stands -- see an attorney. And please to not follow the advice some people are giving that you have nothing to worry about because you are no longer employed by your former employer. You could be sued for breach of contract. Can you imagine the amount of damages your employer could claim in lost patent revenues if, allegedly because of your refusal to sign or delay in signing, either: (a) your former employer loses the application (e.g., because of intervening prior art afer your refusal but but prior to the application); or (b) another entity is able to use the invention for a substantial period of time, gaining sigificiant revenue, before the patent application is finally approved? See an attorney.
If you are thinking of not signing the necessary patent documents, please, please see an attorney first. See an attorney even if you are thinking of signing the documents, if you feel you are doing so under pressure.
Also please consider the possibility that you will not have to resign, be fired, or otherwise face major negative employment consequences if, after receiving advice of counsel, you deline to sign. This is because your statement: is actually quite vague. You may believe your employment agreement requires you to sign patent applications. Your employer may tell you that it does. Hell, your employer may honestly believe that it does. None of these things mean that your employment agreement legally does require you to sign the pertinent documents. It may, or it may not. See an attorney.
Finally, you might also want to consider a possibility that will be unpopular on Slashdot -- i.e., that in seeking the broadest possible patent protection your employer does not have any sort of evil, nefarious, or predatory purpose. Your employer's purpose may be entirely defensive. Unfortunately, given the rules of the game right now, many companies believe that they are *forced* to be in a patent arms race in order to protect themselves, even if they don't have any "offensive" intention themselves. In game theory terms, it is a classical Prisoner's Dilemma. Sadly, the best way to ensure that others don't get a particular patent is to get it yourself. Perhaps more importantly, one way to prevent an competitor from getting a related patent is to establish the prior art by getting one yourself. Finally, sometimes the best way to deter a claim for patent infringement is to have ammuntion -- i.e., patents -- with which you can counter-claim.
The pseudo-sophisitated, let's try to show how smart I am answer -- network effects.
The practical answer: I use AIM because that is what many of my friends use. Some are on American online, many others are not. (Interestingly, Earthlink distributes its own version of the client. "Earthlink America Online.") They can't or won't use IRC for various reasons:
IRC is too difficult for them to learn, even with a graphical client like Mirc or Kirc.
IRC requires too much prior negotiation and agreement. Where is everybody? EFFnet? Undernet? Dalnet? Slashnet?
IRC does not have the same functionality. Don't laugh.
And, for the circular but nonetheless real reason that all of their friends use AIM.
There are at least a couple possible ways to look at this problem. The first way is to believe that making the GUI too easy leads to the average user having no idea what he is actually doing.
A possible second way of looking at the problem is say that the GUI was not easy to use, but obviously insufficient. The interface was defective. Upon initiation of the download the program should have opened up a dialog box asking where the average user wanted to store the file, said box containing a default directory or folder ("Downloads") that can be changed. After the completion of the download, the program should have opened up a dialog box and asked, what do you want to do? If the dowloaded file is an executable -- like a Mircrosoft Word file (Lord, what isn't an executable file these days?) -- the default is to run a virus checker. If the downloaded file is a jpg, the default is to open it, etc.
Perhaps the more unfundemental issue is defining what the average user is "actually doing?" What does the average user really need to know? And if your GUI is good enough, doesn't the average user need to know less? Surely, we don't want the average user to worry about inodes. Perhaps the question is, where to we put the burden for the required "intelligence" to operate the machine -- in the person, or in the machine.
Another example. Perhaps the use of rpms and debs to install Linux programs leads to dumb users who don't really understand what they are doing? Perhaps the only way to get make sure the average user really knows what he is actually doing is to force him to use tarballs. But there are those who feel that you really, really don't know what you are doing unless you can make and compile your own programs. Perhaps we should force people to do that? Which leads me to my next, and most important point. I would argue that it doesn't matter if you, as a developer, designer or coder believe it is, in the long run, "a good idea." In a competitive market enviroment you really don't have a choice. Well, I guess you do -- you can choose to give people what: (a) they want; or (b) what you think they ought to have -- what you think would be best for them in the long run -- even if they, in their stupidity and lack of forsight, chose to ignore you in droves. The fact is that if people want an easy to use interface, and you don't give it to them, somebody else will. Up to now that somebody else has been either Apple or Microsoft.
As a practical matter, it is meaningful for Prof. Dilger to talk about what would be "good" for his consumers only because his consumers are students and the school has a large degree of control over what they do regarding computing. If the school wants to teach students to really know what they are doing, it can ban all GUIs from the computer network and force people to use shell accounts, at least internally. That is not the case in the real world. The sad truth is that if you want your program to be succesful with the masses, you can't affort to give them what you think will be educational and/or good for them in the long run. You have to give them what they want.
Is it really necessary to move configuration data to a database in order to make it easier to set up a GUI front end? Wouldn't it be sufficient if the configuration text files: (a) had a consistent format; and (b) were all found in the same place in different Linux distributions? Isn't this what the Linux Standards Base is all about?
These are not rhetorical questions. I honestly don't know. I'm just one that currently believes that making Linux friendly for newbies does not necessarily reduce the ability of experts to configure and modify it as they will.
David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, (1888) Oxford University Press, Book III, Part I, Section I, pgs. 469-470.
Please don't believe this. Please. It is a matter of incentive, subpeonas, and economics.
Again, I would point to the history of the usenet newsgroup alt.religion.scientology regarding the Scientology secret scriptures. ISPs subpoened, anonymous remailers intimidated, individuals subpeoned and sued, at least one bankrupted.
You might respond, persuasively, that the newsgroup had maybe 100 or so people participating, while the net has millions. Perhaps your view of salvation is fast pipe DSL --cable modem -- T1 peer to peer networking among millions of people sharing mp3s, films, books, win2k, whatever. Perhaps you think that the authorities could never prosecute everyone. I predict that owners of IP might adopt a modified IRS model -- a few, high profile, devestating lawsuits -- perhaps punitive damages or even criminal prosecutions for wilfull copyright violations. They would seed the system with spies who download stuff, and then launch the supoenas -- phone records, ISP log on data. Get some favorable, seemingly harmless legislation through congress requiring the retention of such data for a period of, say, 5 years, for the purpose of suit. Perhaps such legislation would even have strengthened safeguards re: probable cause -- which will always be satisfied give the prima facie case establised by the recorded illicit download.
Please don't get me wrong. I am not saying that the situation is hopeless, or that the IP owners and their lawyers will inevitably win every argument, or that technical solutions that increase the cost of enforcement are without merit. Not at all. Just please don't rely only on technical solutions, and please don't assume that technical solutions alone will keep you safe.
Unfortunately, while technical ability is very important, you also need lawyers, lobbyists, politicians and organization.
(I was attempted to refer to Warren Zevon's song "Laywer's Guns and Money," but I don't want to give anyone any bad ideas.