--- But what if they a) find some other patent that your supersnooper happens to infringe on, forcing you to cross-license (this happens especially often with software patents). ---
That's one of the reasons I'm very hesitant about software patents. I don't think the same rules can be applied. Things simpley evolve too fast.
However, in this case my response would be that it works both ways, and somone else is just as likely to infringe on my super snooper.
---
b) rip you off, make enough changes to not infringe the patent ---
Then it probably wasn't a good patent to begin with. And if there is a bad patent out there, then we can do the same kind of "rip off" to it.
In theory mind you, though you raise a good point in the field of litagation. As such, those with lots of money are more adapt and able to protect their ip than those with out. But I think that's more a problem with the judical system than it is with the patent system.
--- Even in the cases that the "little guy" invents something and actually have a patent that protects it from the big boys -- is this really beneficial for society (sorry to be so cynical)? Wouldn't you have invented that supersnooper anyway? ---
Probably not. A lot of inventors I know, are in it because it's their job. I went to this one guy's house who invented the jaws of life (along with a lot of other things) and I'm fairly certian that he never would have invented those things if he didn't get some royalites out of them.
--- I'm one of those dirty beatniks that long for the day when inventions, software and art flows freely. Cooperation should be encouraged, competition should be permitted but not encouraged. ---
=] personaly I like balance. If I see too much arguing for one side, I'll often take the other. (not in all issues, but many) simply because I believe conflict can cauase inovation, and trying to see the things how the other person might see them. When a society becomes placent it becomes stagnet and a perfect world is a world of one. Of course, Im' just spouting of political philosphy, and I'm too tired to stay up any later =]
"You're right, though, I do want to abolish the patent system completely. I think this is sort of like "those who can afford to pollute/restrict the intellectual sphere with patents can do it". A classical case of rich-gets-richer."
I don't know. I have met a number of people who could only be called inventors. Were it not for the patent system they would not be making anything because those with money and resources could easily exploit their idea.
"Now, left-slanted as I may be, I don't have anything against people making it by working hard. What I am opposed is "it takes money to make money"-situations. The old Samuel-Vimes-cheap-boot-dilemma."
While I do agree with the general premise of "the more you have, the easier it is to hold on to it" I don't think patenets can really be applied in such a manner. True, I would agree to such a thing if the price for reviewing patents was at such a level as to put more of a strain on those with less, but I'm not really sure it is (don't get me wrong, I honestly haven't looked into how much the proposed changes will be). But I do belive that the PO is more likely to try to charge more to the big compaines. Those who put in a 100 applications a day, many of which are the same kind of application with just a few changed details. So in a sense they're trying to raise the playing field rather than raise the bar (again, though I should note this is just mere conjecture on my part. I could be quite wrong.)
" Patents are harmful in another way as well -- they're about restrictions and enmity, not cooperation. "
But they're protective too. For example, if I invent the supersnooper and it because really popular, then I'm protected from big boys comming over and taking my tosh.
As for my position on Intellectual "Property", there's no such thing. I go back and forth on trademarks (long story), I want to see copyrights and trade secrets totally revised, and I want patents to go away.
I don't know.. Like I said I think that copyrights protect us to a degree. However I do belive that they should be more flexiable. Goverment and Public organizations should be able to make use out of them, and corperations shouldn't be able to sit on patents for years on end until someone else comes up with the idea too and figures a good way to make money with it.
Didn't see the the other response. This post is redundant. And of course with you thinking of the Euro-PO it definitatly does put a differnt light on the situation. =]
That's a completely uninformed and reactionary response.
Less work means that they are better equipped to handle the work they do receive. As anyone will tell you when you have 3000 things thrown at you at once, you don't always have the time to explore every nuance. Increasing the price will either do one of two things: It will allow them to hire more (and better technically minded) workers, or it will decrease the number of patents being thrown at PO.
Crappy patents get by because as it is now certain companies are literally shoveling patent applications at them like horse shit and some of it is bound to get through.
The major beneficiaries of this are people like you and me and various others who end up getting screwed because of bad patents which all of this is an effort to prevent.
As much as people might bitch about IP it's going to be around for a while. And while reform might not be as tasty a dish as outright dismal of the PO it's a far better treat then to leave things as they are.
Windows messaging service was fun. One would have thought they'd disable it, but no. Local security permissions were bogus too, since they'd simply ghost the machines and reinstall the default image each week. I think they finally got the picture when after a night of drinking we broke into the lab and made all the computers there execute the following script on startup::1 net send * jesus loves you %username% goto 1
"I have a feeling that sometimes scientists just have a 6th sense that lead them to correct hypothesises even when data does not back them up, and technology later, sometimes generations later, is able to support their ideas."
I'd say it is more of an after sight then anything else. You literaly have billions of people through the ages making different hypothesises, when the scientific data eventualy comes along that happens to match that particular data, then everyone will tend to point back and say "ah ha! that guy was ahead of his time!"
"I'm not sure if we should applaud these folks for voting their mind or treat them as a pariah for taking the cash then not delivering the goods."
The idea that contributions to a campain deserve somthing in return is an extremly faulty one (all be it prevelant). If somone gives you a million dollars to advance your campain it means at face value they believe in your campain stance and want you elected.
Now sure, there obviously is an underlying idea of bribes and of mutual back scratching, and that if such a thing isn't done then next time around maybe your oponent will be more open to the donator's position. But all that only comes second to the fact that it *is* a donation to a campain, and can not be anything more.
If somone offers you $1000, no strings attached, but you know they want you to feel obligated to them none the less, then even if you take the money you don't owe them anything.
"The guy probably spent *days* figuring this thing out, and, for what? Who will use this? What value does it provide? It's a cool hack, sure, but it serves no point. If you're going to hack something, at least make the end result worthwhile."
The same can be said for most things posted on Slashdot.
Because I'm pretty sure for most of these films it is *not* the directors but rather the studios themselves. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but how can it be the director's work, any more than those who did postproduction, or the gaffers, or what not, esp. when the studio is footing the bill for the film.
At least not in the way the poster intends it to be. If it is, then *any* sort of edit should be considered censorship too. The differnce is that they edit what some people don't want to see, but they don't force the edit on those who do. It's no differnt than somone cutting out jar-jar from the phantom menace.
"We all hate how movies get 'edited for tv,' removing the sex, gore, and foul language that make them worth watching."
No, "We all" don't. Some of us could frankly care less, and some of us prefer it. And of course that has nothing to do with Clean Flicks suing. TV flicks are *already* edited post production (and frequently in production).
Miller v. California" (1973) - "In order to be considered to be obscene, the works in question have to depict or describe sexual conduct in a way that is patently offensive to local community standards and which is specifically prohibited in state law; and, taken as a whole, it has to appeal to a prurient interest in sex and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
I should have added the adjective "obscene". Case in point though, for example a cartoon depicting a naked man prostrate on hands and knees with a dog going at him wildly from behind and a caption "MAN'S BEST FRIEND" *could* fall under this catagory.
Note, I say, "could". The problem of course is that it's a very fuzzy criteria and can be argued either way. A lot of wheter somthing is premited under freespeech falls under state and local goverment jurisdiction.
What could be gotten away with in one location, might not in another.
Luckily we hardly ever have to deal with such cases because of editors. (And the pulp books that do contain the offensive imagary aren't readily accessable by those who would take offense at them... even if they were, the worse that could really happen is for the offensive material to be removed from the store it could be purchased in.)
Anyrate, since we're talking about banned cartoons heres a good link for you: (not dealing with the US mind you.) http://www.oneworld.org/index_oc/Cartoon/ca rtoon.h tml
Anymore than they'll get the differnce between php and asp.
Any two languages or tools that acheive similar effects will invaritably be interchangable with each other to those who don't use them.
Besides people using shockwave for flash (and vise versa) isn't that bad, all things considered... what I'm creeped out about is when people start talking about how java == c#.
As viewers we have no contract nor obligation to watch what broadcasters send out. They already (despite some rather inane quotes from a few) know this. So any method that they use to show ads, is going to be in such a way that it's more trouble than it's worth to circumvent them.
For instance:
There's the having an ad spot within the actual show itself,
Rachel: "Oh no! Ross I'm pregnat!" Chandler: "You should have used a Trojan."
There's placing advertisments in the lower right hand side of the screen. (Picture in picture sort of thing)
There's also things that PVRs do themselves (which I'm sure broadcasters will try to make use of) For instance, when you pause your ReplayTV it will ocasionaly bring up an advertisment for the Rio mp3 player. Needless to say, that's a brief look of what's to come.
Ultimatly though, any method that trys to use "user interaction". Like you picking out what ads you're going to watch, or what not, will *never* work.
"why the hell would anybody need 12000 frames per second. The human eye cant process all that plus nothing happens so fast you need 12000 shots of it in a second. This is just plain stupid and its a waste of film."
Because certian events, despite what you might think, *do* occur within 1000ths of a second. (The fireball from a nucelar blast for instance.) Good cammera's shutter speeds tend to go up to 1/1000th of a second, and can go up to 1/8000th.
As far as the humman eye comment, well, just because you record at 12000 fps, doesn't mean you play it back at 12000 fps...
"So one of the things the industry could do with their downloads is have different prices. People with high-quality stereos aren't going to want to put the low quality material on, and the people who have lower quality stereos, with speakers that are incapable of producing the frequencies that let you hear the difference, then they'll buy the cheap ones. That would a way to broaden the market and increase their revenues. In a way it's surprising that the industry hasn't done that. And as they are trying to figure out their models for online sales, that would be one way of doing it. "
I seriously doubt any audiophile is going to be downloading their music. And the question about "hi quality" versus "low quality" isn't really an issue, as very few like the "pay per purchase" set up. (It offers less than any other method, basicaly)
As far as "pirating" the lossy mp3 format is king, and in the eyes of the IP industry, their greatest threat.
The fact that most mp3s found are in 128kb, a bit rate that quite frankly is *not* CD quality and not as good as the orginal, already puts the lie to the "perfect copy" myth. (that is to say pirates can get perfect copies of the orginal)
Not to drag the DMCA into this, but this is one of the most distressing things about its anti copyright circumvention clauses. Those who pirate rarely, if ever, copy a media perfectly. (Anyone who's seen an internet movie can atest to that.) They don't need to so long as their copy is "good enough". In practice the only thing the DMCA clause amounts to is a soap box for the RIAA and the MPAA to stand on.
Slashdot Mirror
---
But what if they
a) find some other patent that your supersnooper happens to infringe on, forcing you to cross-license (this happens especially often with software patents).
---
That's one of the reasons I'm very hesitant about software patents. I don't think the same rules can be applied. Things simpley evolve too fast.
However, in this case my response would be that it works both ways, and somone else is just as likely to infringe on my super snooper.
---
b) rip you off, make enough changes to not infringe the patent
---
Then it probably wasn't a good patent to begin with. And if there is a bad patent out there, then we can do the same kind of "rip off" to it.
In theory mind you, though you raise a good point in the field of litagation. As such, those with lots of money are more adapt and able to protect their ip than those with out. But I think that's more a problem with the judical system than it is with the patent system.
---
Even in the cases that the "little guy" invents something and actually have a patent that protects it from the big boys -- is this really beneficial for society (sorry to be so cynical)? Wouldn't you have invented that supersnooper anyway?
---
Probably not. A lot of inventors I know, are in it because it's their job. I went to this one guy's house who invented the jaws of life (along with a lot of other things) and I'm fairly certian that he never would have invented those things if he didn't get some royalites out of them.
---
I'm one of those dirty beatniks that long for the day when inventions, software and art flows freely. Cooperation should be encouraged, competition should be permitted but not encouraged.
---
=] personaly I like balance. If I see too much arguing for one side, I'll often take the other. (not in all issues, but many) simply because I believe conflict can cauase inovation, and trying to see the things how the other person might see them. When a society becomes placent it becomes stagnet and a perfect world is a world of one. Of course, Im' just spouting of political philosphy, and I'm too tired to stay up any later =]
night
"You're right, though, I do want to abolish the patent system completely. I think this is sort of like "those who can afford to pollute/restrict the intellectual sphere with patents can do it". A classical case of rich-gets-richer."
I don't know. I have met a number of people who could only be called inventors. Were it not for the patent system they would not be making anything because those with money and resources could easily exploit their idea.
"Now, left-slanted as I may be, I don't have anything against people making it by working hard. What I am opposed is "it takes money to make money"-situations. The old Samuel-Vimes-cheap-boot-dilemma."
While I do agree with the general premise of "the more you have, the easier it is to hold on to it" I don't think patenets can really be applied in such a manner.
True, I would agree to such a thing if the price for reviewing patents was at such a level as to put more of a strain on those with less, but I'm not really sure it is (don't get me wrong, I honestly haven't looked into how much the proposed changes will be).
But I do belive that the PO is more likely to try to charge more to the big compaines. Those who put in a 100 applications a day, many of which are the same kind of application with just a few changed details.
So in a sense they're trying to raise the playing field rather than raise the bar (again, though I should note this is just mere conjecture on my part. I could be quite wrong.)
" Patents are harmful in another way as well -- they're about restrictions and enmity, not cooperation. "
But they're protective too. For example, if I invent the supersnooper and it because really popular, then I'm protected from big boys comming over and taking my tosh.
As for my position on Intellectual "Property", there's no such thing. I go back and forth on trademarks (long story), I want to see copyrights and trade secrets totally revised, and I want patents to go away.
I don't know.. Like I said I think that copyrights protect us to a degree. However I do belive that they should be more flexiable. Goverment and Public organizations should be able to make use out of them, and corperations shouldn't be able to sit on patents for years on end until someone else comes up with the idea too and figures a good way to make money with it.
Heh, Anyone who's a fan of Terry Prattchet can't be all that bad. ;)
Didn't see the the other response. This post is redundant. And of course with you thinking of the Euro-PO it definitatly does put a differnt light on the situation. =]
That's a completely uninformed and reactionary response.
Less work means that they are better equipped to handle the work they do receive. As anyone will tell you when you have 3000 things thrown at you at once, you don't always have the time to explore every nuance. Increasing the price will either do one of two things: It will allow them to hire more (and better technically minded) workers, or it will decrease the number of patents being thrown at PO.
Crappy patents get by because as it is now certain companies are literally shoveling patent applications at them like horse shit and some of it is bound to get through.
The major beneficiaries of this are people like you and me and various others who end up getting screwed because of bad patents which all of this is an effort to prevent.
As much as people might bitch about IP it's going to be around for a while. And while reform might not be as tasty a dish as outright dismal of the PO it's a far better treat then to leave things as they are.
Yeah.
:1
Windows messaging service was fun. One would have thought they'd disable it, but no. Local security permissions were bogus too, since they'd simply ghost the machines and reinstall the default image each week.
I think they finally got the picture when after a night of drinking we broke into the lab and made all the computers there execute the following script on startup:
net send * jesus loves you %username%
goto 1
"I have a feeling that sometimes scientists just have a 6th sense that lead them to correct hypothesises even when data does not back them up, and technology later, sometimes generations later, is able to support their ideas."
I'd say it is more of an after sight then anything else. You literaly have billions of people through the ages making different hypothesises, when the scientific data eventualy comes along that happens to match that particular data, then everyone will tend to point back and say "ah ha! that guy was ahead of his time!"
"Jesus. An english teacher / sysadmin."
No, Jesus was a carpenter.
"Tired of Creative Freedom?"
"enjoy screwing with the minds of others?"
"do you take sadistic pleasure in your work?"
Two out of three ain't bad.
"I'm not sure if we should applaud these folks for voting their mind or treat them as a pariah for taking the cash then not delivering the goods."
The idea that contributions to a campain deserve somthing in return is an extremly faulty one (all be it prevelant). If somone gives you a million dollars to advance your campain it means at face value they believe in your campain stance and want you elected.
Now sure, there obviously is an underlying idea of bribes and of mutual back scratching, and that if such a thing isn't done then next time around maybe your oponent will be more open to the donator's position.
But all that only comes second to the fact that it *is* a donation to a campain, and can not be anything more.
If somone offers you $1000, no strings attached, but you know they want you to feel obligated to them none the less, then even if you take the money you don't owe them anything.
How long before people learn that "haxor talk" is a panty ass way of fitting in?
"The guy probably spent *days* figuring this thing out, and, for what? Who will use this? What value does it provide? It's a cool hack, sure, but it serves no point. If you're going to hack something, at least make the end result worthwhile."
The same can be said for most things posted on Slashdot.
Esp. all the god damn case mods.
So what if it's cheaper to buy ram, or that it's not effecient or what not. Half the hacks posted on Slashdot tend to be next to useless anyways.
It's a cool hack, simple as that.
Because I'm pretty sure for most of these films it is *not* the directors but rather the studios themselves.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but how can it be the director's work, any more than those who did postproduction, or the gaffers, or what not, esp. when the studio is footing the bill for the film.
At least not in the way the poster intends it to be. If it is, then *any* sort of edit should be considered censorship too. The differnce is that they edit what some people don't want to see, but they don't force the edit on those who do.
It's no differnt than somone cutting out jar-jar from the phantom menace.
"We all hate how movies get 'edited for tv,' removing the sex, gore, and foul language that make them worth watching."
No, "We all" don't. Some of us could frankly care less, and some of us prefer it. And of course that has nothing to do with Clean Flicks suing. TV flicks are *already* edited post production (and frequently in production).
"Capitalism does not tolerate inefficiency.
True enough.."
I don't know. I'd amend that statment to "Capitalism does not tolerate inefficiency in those who have less capital"
Those who do happen to have capital, can get away with it easier, esp. when they are able to crush their more efficienct competition.
Which only adds to the little groups and goverments (and not so little ones) kissing ass to large corperations, as the above poster notes.
Miller v. California" (1973) - "In order to be considered to be obscene, the works in question have to depict or describe sexual conduct in a way that is patently offensive to local community standards and which is specifically prohibited in state law; and, taken as a whole, it has to appeal to a prurient interest in sex and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
a rtoon.h tml
I should have added the adjective "obscene". Case in point though, for example a cartoon depicting a naked man prostrate on hands and knees with a dog going at him wildly from behind and a caption "MAN'S BEST FRIEND" *could* fall under this catagory.
Note, I say, "could". The problem of course is that it's a very fuzzy criteria and can be argued either way. A lot of wheter somthing is premited under freespeech falls under state and local goverment jurisdiction.
What could be gotten away with in one location, might not in another.
Luckily we hardly ever have to deal with such cases because of editors. (And the pulp books that do contain the offensive imagary aren't readily accessable by those who would take offense at them... even if they were, the worse that could really happen is for the offensive material to be removed from the store it could be purchased in.)
Anyrate, since we're talking about banned cartoons heres a good link for you: (not dealing with the US mind you.)
http://www.oneworld.org/index_oc/Cartoon/c
People never will get it.
Anymore than they'll get the differnce between php and asp.
Any two languages or tools that acheive similar effects will invaritably be interchangable with each other to those who don't use them.
Besides people using shockwave for flash (and vise versa) isn't that bad, all things considered... what I'm creeped out about is when people start talking about how java == c#.
Just because some video games are freespeech, doesn't mean all are.
Yes, it's an interesting phenomena in our culture, but it isn't evidence that all video games *are* protected free speech.
Some pictures are considered art, and thus freespeech, but pictures themself aren't freespeech.
Likewise, some video-games can be considered poltical statments, but video games themself aren't freespeech.
Doesn't mean all are.
Political cartoons are protected speech.
Porn cartoons are not. Even if they in some way are political.
Same way with games.
Just because X item in the genere fits into catagory Y, doesn't mean the whole genere fits into catagory Y.
I still use *my* C128.
It's got 320x200 resolution!!!
As viewers we have no contract nor obligation to watch what broadcasters send out. They already (despite some rather inane quotes from a few) know this.
So any method that they use to show ads, is going to be in such a way that it's more trouble than it's worth to circumvent them.
For instance:
There's the having an ad spot within the actual show itself,
Rachel: "Oh no! Ross I'm pregnat!"
Chandler: "You should have used a Trojan."
There's placing advertisments in the lower right hand side of the screen. (Picture in picture sort of thing)
There's also things that PVRs do themselves (which I'm sure broadcasters will try to make use of) For instance, when you pause your ReplayTV it will ocasionaly bring up an advertisment for the Rio mp3 player.
Needless to say, that's a brief look of what's to come.
Ultimatly though, any method that trys to use "user interaction". Like you picking out what ads you're going to watch, or what not, will *never* work.
"why the hell would anybody need 12000 frames per second. The human eye cant process all that plus nothing happens so fast you need 12000 shots of it in a second. This is just plain stupid and its a waste of film."
Because certian events, despite what you might think, *do* occur within 1000ths of a second. (The fireball from a nucelar blast for instance.)
Good cammera's shutter speeds tend to go up to 1/1000th of a second, and can go up to 1/8000th.
As far as the humman eye comment, well, just because you record at 12000 fps, doesn't mean you play it back at 12000 fps...
"So one of the things the industry could do with their downloads is have different prices. People with high-quality stereos aren't going to want to put the low quality material on, and the people who have lower quality stereos, with speakers that are incapable of producing the frequencies that let you hear the difference, then they'll buy the cheap ones. That would a way to broaden the market and increase their revenues. In a way it's surprising that the industry hasn't done that. And as they are trying to figure out their models for online sales, that would be one way of doing it. "
I seriously doubt any audiophile is going to be downloading their music. And the question about "hi quality" versus "low quality" isn't really an issue, as very few like the "pay per purchase" set up. (It offers less than any other method, basicaly)
As far as "pirating" the lossy mp3 format is king, and in the eyes of the IP industry, their greatest threat.
The fact that most mp3s found are in 128kb, a bit rate that quite frankly is *not* CD quality and not as good as the orginal, already puts the lie to the "perfect copy" myth. (that is to say pirates can get perfect copies of the orginal)
Not to drag the DMCA into this, but this is one of the most distressing things about its anti copyright circumvention clauses. Those who pirate rarely, if ever, copy a media perfectly. (Anyone who's seen an internet movie can atest to that.) They don't need to so long as their copy is "good enough".
In practice the only thing the DMCA clause amounts to is a soap box for the RIAA and the MPAA to stand on.