Nobody tried to get a hold of these orphan books and put them out there, because such an activity is illegal, or a bad move. Normal companies didn't do it. It is illegal. Publisher surely didn't want to do it, because orphan works are the best. They are not competition(like public domain), and they are not accessible(unlike public domain). When US signed Berne convention, they stopped a very reasonnable system, where the registration obligation prevented the very existence of orphan works. By letting Google monopolize orphan works, one give a bonus to the player that didn't follow the rules. As a society, it is usualy a very bad idea.
The first Colbert suggested by wikipedia is : Jean-Baptiste Colbert (1619 -> 1683), French minister of finance under King Louis XIV
This state servant was one of the primary artisan of the present French situation, where we have national or quasi-national big corps, with very tight links with the central administration. Colbertism, named after him, is a form of mercantilism where the good of the nation is only really the good of the ruling class.
Perhaps this historical view is not completely irrelevant for NASA...
Now, for international observers, perhaps your TV host is famous in the US, but US is not the world.
According to wikipedia : Colbert is a common surname and rare given name of Old French and Old German origins; it was introduced to Britain by the Normans.[1]
Colbert most commonly refers to: Jean-Baptiste Colbert (1619–1683), French minister of finance under King Louis XIV...
The problem with a balanced objective is that it cannot be achieved by negotiation again unreasonnable demands. xxAA want infinity. You want 25 or 50 years. If you say you want that, the "management", hearing 50 and infinity, will go toward extension, trying to attain a balanced compromise. If you really wants reasonable terms, given your opponents, you are best saying you want NO ip. Then, when the statusquo is maintained, or the recent international delirium begin to fade, you can "accept a compromise", keep the moral high ground, and be ready for the next round of fight against extensions of IP.
What seems to be, to me, an essential design objective of a voting process, is the ability to be trustable(not sure of this word, English is not my primary language) when operated by actors who don't trust each other. And there should be no root user. Double blind require a regulator, or a control team that as full access to the data. Doctors don't know if they are prescribing some medicine or some placebo. Patients don't know what they are prescribed. But someone, somewhere, must be able to know.
Whether one consider a voting process is intended to know the will of the people, or to convince the people that they are in charge, and then, should not resort to revolution when they are angry with the situation, the important element is that people must have complete trust in the process. But if the process is to include secrecy, there should be NO way to violate this secrecy, neither from within, nor from the outside.
The elector should not have to trust any international observer, any machine vendor, not even his own government. As soon as there is complete audit possibility, secrecy is no longer possible. So one should only rely on partial audit for the dynamic part of the process.
I don't want obfuscation of operation. But there must be a clear step in the process that disconnect voters from votes. In some countries, papers in envelopes are put in a transparent box. At the beginning, the box is clearly empty. And as long as they are at least two different expressed choices in the election, votes can not be reconnected with the voters. But nobody can dynamically audit this anonymization, only observe it from the exterior. Because auditing it completely would break it. One can only audit a partial vision of the process.
When one make accounting, one does not only look at the exterior of the operations, but one as also full informations about what is audited. So the situation is clearly different. (At least for something from a country where we believe that secret vote must be secret).
There is an enormous difference between voting and accounting, and that is the visibility of the system. Actors of the accounting, whether they are accountant, or business partner, or IRS, are looking at all. When there is a transaction between to company, each one see every aspect of this transaction. When the IRS want to know how the company produced the result, they can search. WHEN (not IF) an error occurs, voluntary or not, many eyes can detect it, and correct it. No secret transactions. When two banks using SWIFT transfer funds, when there is an error, they can detect and correct.
Voting is clearly different : When you cast your vote, nobody can see it any longer. This is a different type of system. You can forget all what you know about accounting (except adding 1 to a number). The system must be provably good, without looking at its functioning. The static description must suffice to convince everybody of the exactitude of the system. You cannot rely on checking the normal dynamic comportment. And you cannot rely on a debug mode for verification of the dynamic, and a standard mode for normal usage, unless you can prove that the debugging has NO influence, direct or indirect, on the system. Even if you say : let's have a display explaining what is done inside the machine, and when there is an actual election, the display is hidden, you are not shielded from Tempest effects. And if you disconnect the video generator of this debug screen, you are not running the system you audited. Whatever the protection you invent, one can devise counter-protections. And whatever the protection you implement, you are complicating the system, and putting it conceptually out of reach of the common voter.
Believing in the result of election can no longer be rational, but become faith.
I'm quite sure that if Microsoft never had more than 15% of the market, there would be no M$ bashing on slashdot.
Without taking into account the distortions introduced by cross selling or bundling (think Doubleclick, gmail, google apps, google maps, google news, google talk, google googles....), once a company attain a certain size in a market, the market is no longer working as it should. This is one reason why anti-trust legislation was created. And the fact that greed is glorified by some is no reason to accept too big corporations. So, "do no evil" ceased to have any meaning a few years ago, even before the IPO
Disclaimer : I'm probably biased. I shared many clients with Stéphane since 1998, I live less than a mile from him, and I always have a lot of pleasure to discuss with him when we meet in the train, BUT : - He clearly is educated. - The plan to follow the art of war is a few years old, and was explained to me a long time before the co-author was chosen. And remember that choosing a formal constraint can give a boost in creativity in matters of writing. Having decided of some not-too-much-incoherent plan frees the mind about important matters. Now, as an aside, I can garantee you that the Art of War is not faddish now where we live. Perhaps in some parts of the US. Not here, not now.
As far as I know, in France copyright for recording expire perhaps after 50 years, but what expire is the copyright of the particular recording. The copyright of the lyrics and of the music is still existant, and assimilated to the copyright of books. They are equally : "Oeuvres de l'esprit" that is "Work of the Mind", and are aforded the same protection.
Of course, copyright does not exist as such in French law, but the equivalent notion "Droits patrimoniaux" (pecuniary rights) is suficient similar for our common law friends to understand the idea.
So, when Rock and Roll classic begin to get out of copyright in Europe, it is true when those classics use lyrics and musics composited by US nationals (which is the case of many such music) who already lost their copyright in the US, because usualy, the protection offered in France for foreign works(and probably in many other european country) is, with a lot of simplifications: min(protection of IP in France for the category of work, protection in the country of origin)
So Elvis, perhaps, need to check the status of copyright of what he sang. Beatles, I doubt it.
Having the recording lose "droits patrimoniaux" (copyright) means that anybody can reproduce the recording without having to pay anything to the singers and musicians, but, depending of the specifics of the case, one can still have to pay to writer/composer.
To add to the complexity, the french "Code de la propriete intellectuelle" (law of IP) says, in substance that the durations enonced are maximum, and for works whose author is a foreign nationnal, work are protected in France for the duration accorded by the country of origin or France, the shorter of the two, provided there is reciprocity of protection for the works of french origin in the country of origin of the considered work (I didn't relly dig into the case where an author from A write and publish some work in B, and A and/or B doesn't protect french works). So Peter Pan can be public domain in France (except there is not really an IP public domain, only extinction of patrimonial rights, when moral rights are perpetuals (essentially, so long after author death, the interdiction for anybody to claim they created the work)) and public domain for a much longer time in USA (the ex IP pirats;) and still protected in UK (even if it is not really copyright). So, talking about Europen copyrights in a general way is just a sure way to have it wrong.
Moreover, European copyrights expire sooner than American copyrights, at the moment. So a lot of valuable 20th-century material could become available.
Where did you get this crazy notion ?
In France, the rights go for 75 years after death of the author (previously 50, previously 25), plus war periods, plus 25 years if the author died for France.
So, as a sample, The little Prince, by St Exupery (who died in 1943, as a pilot) should have been protected at the time until 1993 (25 + died for France). But then, we had 2 extentions (50 then 75 years). Then there was Indochine war (the mess that became Vietnam war). Then there was Algery. As a side note, Algery is legally a war only since a few years (at most 5), but then, by virtue of a law intented to help ex-fighter in what was before a police operation, all copyrights (even if copyright does not exist as such in french law) where extended for 8 years.
And I don't speak about England, where recently, a law declared that the copyright to Peter Pan (which was donated to an hospital) is to be perpetual.
So European copyrights are not so short, and the situation is much more complicated than that.
DRM : Digital Rights Management Management : acte of managing.
Whose rights exists ? - Author rights. - Producer rights. - Public rights.
Show me a system that manage (not restrict) public rights. Show me a system that remove all protections once a work fall in the public domain. Show me a system that help me to parody, or quote, or permit me all fair right uses, no matter where I'm in the world. No SCDRMS (So called Digital rights management system) manage rights. Presently, DRM is inexistant. What exist is public perception manipulation and brainwashing. And this, too, is unacceptable.
Europe did fight against MS, for years, with no result in view. Looking to the proposed constitution, what is garanteed is liberal politic. And European governments pass 90% of their time converting in national legislations decision from the inelected commission. Europe was Economic Comunity of Coal and Steel, then European Economic Community, and essentially a big market (Marché Unique, in french, not sure about the english translation). Politics want to introduce a constitution, giving an illusion of power to peoples, but it is historically and basically a pro-business construction.
I'm sure there was zero network during the update, but rereading your post (and not the F... article), you say the patent cover when the client is trusted to control the data. What does it mean when the patent cover bad practice ? Aren't patent suposed to be for the advancement of the arts and sciences ?
I say it is great news for OSS. Let have Microsoft patent this and be the only one to use it. They can also patent and be the only one to use all other bad practices.
disabling component depending on the value of other was some thing I did regulary in PowerBuilder using calculated attribute in datawindows around 1996. It was client/server, so it was remote. And in a datawindow, you can have a calculated attribute debending on a PowerBuilder function (using dwModify. Oh it's old, 7 years I didn't touch it), so local treatment is obvious.
Remember, for years and years and years, SUN communication was based on : "The network is the computer". With such a commun slogan, how one can consider that something done on a computer become not obvious when made accross the network ?
Slashdot Mirror
try https://g.co/
g.co use an invalid security certificate
Certificate valide only for :
*.google.com , google.com , *.atggl.com , *.youtube.com , youtube.com , *.ytimg.com , *.google.com.br , *.google.co.in , *.google.es , *.google.co.uk , *.google.ca , *.google.fr , *.google.pt , *.google.it , *.google.de , *.google.cl , *.google.pl , *.google.nl , *.google.com.au , *.google.co.jp , *.google.hu , *.google.com.mx , *.google.com.ar , *.google.com.co , *.google.com.vn , *.google.com.tr , *.android.com , *.googlecommerce.com
(error code : ssl_error_bad_cert_domain)
but what operator precedence do you consider to be standard, for the expression 21/3*981727612785316256514034236^0
Where do you put the implied parenthesis ?
I first (mis)read that the Newton App Store was going online
amusing, I have heard so many times that the purpose of copyright was "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"...
Nobody tried to get a hold of these orphan books and put them out there, because such an activity is illegal, or a bad move.
Normal companies didn't do it. It is illegal.
Publisher surely didn't want to do it, because orphan works are the best. They are not competition(like public domain), and they are not accessible(unlike public domain).
When US signed Berne convention, they stopped a very reasonnable system, where the registration obligation prevented the very existence of orphan works.
By letting Google monopolize orphan works, one give a bonus to the player that didn't follow the rules. As a society, it is usualy a very bad idea.
The first Colbert suggested by wikipedia is :
Jean-Baptiste Colbert (1619 -> 1683), French minister of finance under King Louis XIV
This state servant was one of the primary artisan of the present French situation, where we have national or quasi-national big corps, with very tight links with the central administration.
Colbertism, named after him, is a form of mercantilism where the good of the nation is only really the good of the ruling class.
Perhaps this historical view is not completely irrelevant for NASA...
Now, for international observers, perhaps your TV host is famous in the US, but US is not the world.
According to wikipedia :
Colbert is a common surname and rare given name of Old French and Old German origins; it was introduced to Britain by the Normans.[1]
Colbert most commonly refers to:
Jean-Baptiste Colbert (1619–1683), French minister of finance under King Louis XIV...
And that's the US version.
The problem with a balanced objective is that it cannot be achieved by negotiation again unreasonnable demands.
xxAA want infinity.
You want 25 or 50 years.
If you say you want that, the "management", hearing 50 and infinity, will go toward extension, trying to attain a balanced compromise.
If you really wants reasonable terms, given your opponents, you are best saying you want NO ip.
Then, when the statusquo is maintained, or the recent international delirium begin to fade, you can "accept a compromise", keep the moral high ground, and be ready for the next round of fight against extensions of IP.
No, it is not the year of Linux on the desktop, but on the laptop...
Now, some have doubts about the future of desktop anyway...
What seems to be, to me, an essential design objective of a voting process, is the ability to be trustable(not sure of this word, English is not my primary language) when operated by actors who don't trust each other. And there should be no root user. Double blind require a regulator, or a control team that as full access to the data. Doctors don't know if they are prescribing some medicine or some placebo. Patients don't know what they are prescribed. But someone, somewhere, must be able to know.
Whether one consider a voting process is intended to know the will of the people, or to convince the people that they are in charge, and then, should not resort to revolution when they are angry with the situation, the important element is that people must have complete trust in the process. But if the process is to include secrecy, there should be NO way to violate this secrecy, neither from within, nor from the outside.
The elector should not have to trust any international observer, any machine vendor, not even his own government.
As soon as there is complete audit possibility, secrecy is no longer possible. So one should only rely on partial audit for the dynamic part of the process.
I don't want obfuscation of operation. But there must be a clear step in the process that disconnect voters from votes. In some countries, papers in envelopes are put in a transparent box. At the beginning, the box is clearly empty. And as long as they are at least two different expressed choices in the election, votes can not be reconnected with the voters. But nobody can dynamically audit this anonymization, only observe it from the exterior. Because auditing it completely would break it. One can only audit a partial vision of the process.
When one make accounting, one does not only look at the exterior of the operations, but one as also full informations about what is audited. So the situation is clearly different. (At least for something from a country where we believe that secret vote must be secret).
sorry for the wording. I should have said :
"When you cast your vote, nobody can see it any longer as your vote."
There is an enormous difference between voting and accounting, and that is the visibility of the system. Actors of the accounting, whether they are accountant, or business partner, or IRS, are looking at all. When there is a transaction between to company, each one see every aspect of this transaction. When the IRS want to know how the company produced the result, they can search. WHEN (not IF) an error occurs, voluntary or not, many eyes can detect it, and correct it. No secret transactions. When two banks using SWIFT transfer funds, when there is an error, they can detect and correct.
Voting is clearly different :
When you cast your vote, nobody can see it any longer. This is a different type of system. You can forget all what you know about accounting (except adding 1 to a number). The system must be provably good, without looking at its functioning.
The static description must suffice to convince everybody of the exactitude of the system. You cannot rely on checking the normal dynamic comportment. And you cannot rely on a debug mode for verification of the dynamic, and a standard mode for normal usage, unless you can prove that the debugging has NO influence, direct or indirect, on the system.
Even if you say : let's have a display explaining what is done inside the machine, and when there is an actual election, the display is hidden, you are not shielded from Tempest effects. And if you disconnect the video generator of this debug screen, you are not running the system you audited. Whatever the protection you invent, one can devise counter-protections. And whatever the protection you implement, you are complicating the system, and putting it conceptually out of reach of the common voter.
Believing in the result of election can no longer be rational, but become faith.
Big is evil.
I'm quite sure that if Microsoft never had more than 15% of the market, there would be no M$ bashing on slashdot.
Without taking into account the distortions introduced by cross selling or bundling (think Doubleclick, gmail, google apps, google maps, google news, google talk, google googles....), once a company attain a certain size in a market, the market is no longer working as it should. This is one reason why anti-trust legislation was created.
And the fact that greed is glorified by some is no reason to accept too big corporations.
So, "do no evil" ceased to have any meaning a few years ago, even before the IPO
For a French reader :
No comments
Disclaimer : I'm probably biased. I shared many clients with Stéphane since 1998, I live less than a mile from him, and I always have a lot of pleasure to discuss with him when we meet in the train, BUT :
- He clearly is educated.
- The plan to follow the art of war is a few years old, and was explained to me a long time before the co-author was chosen. And remember that choosing a formal constraint can give a boost in creativity in matters of writing. Having decided of some not-too-much-incoherent plan frees the mind about important matters.
Now, as an aside, I can garantee you that the Art of War is not faddish now where we live. Perhaps in some parts of the US. Not here, not now.
As far as I know, in France copyright for recording expire perhaps after 50 years, but what expire is the copyright of the particular recording. The copyright of the lyrics and of the music is still existant, and assimilated to the copyright of books.
They are equally : "Oeuvres de l'esprit" that is "Work of the Mind", and are aforded the same protection.
Of course, copyright does not exist as such in French law, but the equivalent notion "Droits patrimoniaux" (pecuniary rights) is suficient similar for our common law friends to understand the idea.
So, when Rock and Roll classic begin to get out of copyright in Europe, it is true when those classics use lyrics and musics composited by US nationals (which is the case of many such music) who already lost their copyright in the US, because usualy, the protection offered in France for foreign works(and probably in many other european country) is, with a lot of simplifications:
min(protection of IP in France for the category of work, protection in the country of origin)
So Elvis, perhaps, need to check the status of copyright of what he sang.
Beatles, I doubt it.
Having the recording lose "droits patrimoniaux" (copyright) means that anybody can reproduce the recording without having to pay anything to the singers and musicians, but, depending of the specifics of the case, one can still have to pay to writer/composer.
To add to the complexity, the french "Code de la propriete intellectuelle" (law of IP) says, in substance that the durations enonced are maximum, and for works whose author is a foreign nationnal, work are protected in France for the duration accorded by the country of origin or France, the shorter of the two, provided there is reciprocity of protection for the works of french origin in the country of origin of the considered work (I didn't relly dig into the case where an author from A write and publish some work in B, and A and/or B doesn't protect french works). So Peter Pan can be public domain in France (except there is not really an IP public domain, only extinction of patrimonial rights, when moral rights are perpetuals (essentially, so long after author death, the interdiction for anybody to claim they created the work)) and public domain for a much longer time in USA (the ex IP pirats ;) and still protected in UK (even if it is not really copyright). So, talking about Europen copyrights in a general way is just a sure way to have it wrong.
Moreover, European copyrights expire sooner than American copyrights, at the moment. So a lot of valuable 20th-century material could become available.
Where did you get this crazy notion ?
In France, the rights go for 75 years after death of the author (previously 50, previously 25), plus war periods, plus 25 years if the author died for France.
So, as a sample, The little Prince, by St Exupery (who died in 1943, as a pilot) should have been protected at the time until 1993 (25 + died for France). But then, we had 2 extentions (50 then 75 years). Then there was Indochine war (the mess that became Vietnam war). Then there was Algery. As a side note, Algery is legally a war only since a few years (at most 5), but then, by virtue of a law intented to help ex-fighter in what was before a police operation, all copyrights (even if copyright does not exist as such in french law) where extended for 8 years. And I don't speak about England, where recently, a law declared that the copyright to Peter Pan (which was donated to an hospital) is to be perpetual.
So European copyrights are not so short, and the situation is much more complicated than that.
DRM : Digital Rights Management
Management : acte of managing.
Whose rights exists ?
- Author rights.
- Producer rights.
- Public rights.
Show me a system that manage (not restrict) public rights.
Show me a system that remove all protections once a work fall in the public domain.
Show me a system that help me to parody, or quote, or permit me all fair right uses, no matter where I'm in the world.
No SCDRMS (So called Digital rights management system) manage rights.
Presently, DRM is inexistant. What exist is public perception manipulation and brainwashing. And this, too, is unacceptable.
your advance in UK are compromise. They are backward movement in France.
Europe did fight against MS, for years, with no result in view.
Looking to the proposed constitution, what is garanteed is liberal politic.
And European governments pass 90% of their time converting in national legislations decision from the inelected commission.
Europe was Economic Comunity of Coal and Steel, then European Economic Community, and essentially a big market (Marché Unique, in french, not sure about the english translation).
Politics want to introduce a constitution, giving an illusion of power to peoples, but it is historically and basically a pro-business construction.
EU is not for the benefit of citizens, but for the benefit of corporations. It is a market, not a democracy.
When will a corporation do jail time, and how ?
I'm sure there was zero network during the update, but rereading your post (and not the F... article),
you say the patent cover when the client is trusted to control the data. What does it mean when the patent cover bad practice ? Aren't patent suposed to be for the advancement of the arts and sciences ?
I say it is great news for OSS. Let have Microsoft patent this and be the only one to use it. They can also patent and be the only one to use all other bad practices.
disabling component depending on the value of other was some thing I did regulary in PowerBuilder using calculated attribute in datawindows around 1996. It was client/server, so it was remote. And in a datawindow, you can have a calculated attribute debending on a PowerBuilder function (using dwModify. Oh it's old, 7 years I didn't touch it), so local treatment is obvious.
Remember, for years and years and years, SUN communication was based on : "The network is the computer".
With such a commun slogan, how one can consider that something done on a computer become not obvious when made accross the network ?