But letting other people make digital copies of a non-free copyrighted work is almost certainly not within fair use rights.
I don't agree. Do you have reasoning/sources to back you up?
Can I make a copy of a music CD to play in the car? What if me and my wife share the car -- do you think it's legal for her to listen to it? What about if it's her car and only she uses it? Can I make a copy for my mom who doesn't live with me? for a friend? Can I make a copy not knowing whom I'd give it to?
Steam is the only direct-to-consumer internet-based game delivery service.
Umm... no. I bought a lot of games by going to a website, paying with a credit card, and downloading the game. That's "direct-to-consumer" and definitely "internet-based" game delivery to my hard drive.
Insomuch as a direct client-to-server experience with direct payment capacity in the client.
And why do I want a direct payment capability in the client? I don't. My web browser gives me all "direct payment capability" I need.
You trash it because it is the only one available and the only one that has performed.
LOL. It hasn't performed and that's why a lot of people are trashing it.
But anyway, my problems with Steam are not performance. They are that Steam doesn't want to be just a "delivery service". It wants to have ongoing control over what I do at my machine.
Why in the world don't I get a say in whether my game on my hard drive get patched or not? And why in hell would Steam throw a hissy fit if I decide to mess with game files -- again, my game files on my hard drive?
I want games that I will play on my own terms. I don't want a piece of software that will decide what's good for me and what's not.
2.) Copyright infringement of other people's stuff, no matter how many people try to justify it, is ethically wrong.
Umm.. don't you have to define your ethics first before deciding what's ethically wrong and what's right?
Not everyone thinks as you do and, more importantly, not everyone holds the same set of moral values as you do. Unless you think that only YOUR ethics are right and everyone else who disagrees is wrong, I don't see how you can say that copyright infringement is always ethically bad.
Guy breaks EULA, guy reverse engineers copyright protection code, guy publishes way to break company's proprietary document protection code, company gets understandably upset and pursues legal options. Ho-hum. Why should Adobe have acted any differently.
Well, you know, some of us would prefer to live in a world where you can get into trouble because you broke a law, not just because you upset a large company.
Breaking EULA? Umm... Sklyarov is a Russian citizen and did all his work in Russia. Care to show me some decisions by Russian courts which say that Adobe EULA has any legal standing in Russia?
Reverse engineering code? That's expressly legal in Russia and US.
Publishing ways to break document protection code? Even if you think that DMCA is a good thing, again, Sklyarov is a Russian and did his work in Russia. Since when DMCA is binding on non-Americans?
Yes, Adobe makes the best imaging software. No, I'm not going to boycott them over the Sklyarov issue. But to say that Adobe did the right thing in this case is pushing it too far. Adobe was wrong.
No sane person should connect a critical piece of computer infrastructure... to the internet.
ROTFL...
Quickly! Disconnect the backbone from the internet! Unplug the DNS root servers! Take the routers offline! Cut the cables leading into Mae East! The internet is too dangerous!!!
Sigh. You're wrong. I told you to Google it and you didn't:-)
Very briefly, when you're watching an object moving fast in a movie each frame will have not a sharp image of that object in a slightly different place, but a smudge. The fact that it's a smudge, more or less continuous between adjacent frames, is what allows movies to run at 30 fps and look smooth.
Computer games, unless specifically programmed for that particular effect, do not have smudges. Each frame is perfectly sharp. This creates jerkiness as a sharply defined object jumps from place to place as frames change. That's why 30 fps is a bare minimum and not the optimum.
Anyway, this is very easy to determine. Play Quake or Unreal at 30 fps, and then play it at 60 fps. Now tell me it feels the same:-)
and you only need to ensure that 30 FPS goes down the pipe.
Double sigh. No, you need to ensure that 30 FPS COMES OUT OF THE PIPE. A small spike in network lag and your fps crashes with a loud thud.
Compiling is a task well suited for distribution, unlike most. Development can be done at any dumb terminal anywhere, and doesn't require you to have your own machine to do the work.
Generally speaking, you are correct. However, let me point out a few matters which complicate things.
Not all software development environments use compilation. Once you peek out of the box of C and friends (C++, Java) you'll find things like Perl, List, etc. where the wait-for-compile stage is noticeably absent.
Moreover, if a large chunk of your programming time is spent waiting for things to compile, I would argue that either you need better tools, or your project is badly structured.
In any case, a rather small percentage of the general population does things like compiling and the needs of professional programmers are unlikely to be important in determining the trade-offs of web-based applications...
Ah next up, the big one, games. Let's rework your calculations a bit, since they're a bit.. shady
:-) Well, let's rework them, but let's agree that I don't want to lose image quality if I am to switch over to web-based games.
I currently play most of my 3D games (e.g. World of Warcraft, UT 2004) at 1280 x 960 resolution. I usually play other games (e.g. Civ III) at full 1600 x 1200, but we'll leave it aside at the moment. I am most definitely unwilling to play games at 800 x 600.
So, 1280 * 960 = slightly over 1.2 MPixels. Since we are transfering bitmaps we don't need the alpha channel, just the RGB values, 3 bytes/pixel. So we have 3.6 Mb of data per screen.
As to framerate, 30 fps is the *bare minimum* for fast-paced games. Note that 30 fps for a computer game is very different from 30 fps for a movie. Google for it, it's a bit too long to discuss here. But for the sake of argument let's say 30 fps is enough, so our uncompressed data flow is around 110 Mb/second.
Now, compression. I don't want ugly artifacts on my screen -- I don't have them now and see no reason to acquire them. This means we are going to do high-quality compression. Ratio of 1:3 should be more or less in the ballpark, so we have a data flow of around 35 Mb/sec which is more or less 350 Mbits/sec.
But now the interesting question. Network lag in games is caused by latency and almost never by lack of sufficient bandwidth. And sending bitmaps over the net will help latency by about... zero. So right now to play multiplayer games I need bandwidth of, oh, say 3.5Kb/sec. You are suggesting that to continue playing such games I need to increase my bandwidth by FOUR ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE and for what? Network lag will still be there.
All you've done is offload graphic processing over to the server. Basically you took the graphics card out of the computer, put it on a server, and decided to implement the video bus over TCP/IP:-)
If they lose your data, they're responsible and they can and should be sued.
OK. But then they'll need the money to pay the lawyers and the cost of lawsuits, right? Where will this money be coming from? Umm... right, so it will be coming from your monthly fee...
Google's servers are a order of magnitude more environmentally safe: They're likely to stay on the rack for 10-20 years,
I very much doubt the Google's machines will stay on the rack for 10-20 years... But that's irrelevant in any case -- I wasn't talking about servers. I was talking about the device that would be in your home and that you would use to access Google's servers.
This device -- it will have a monitor, right? And a keyboard? Speakers, too? Hmm... it will need a video chip to send the signal to the monitor, it will need a sound chip to send the signal to the speakers, it will need a NIC to deal with ethernet packets, it will need a microprocessor to run code locally, it will need RAM for the same reason...
Today, think of the benefits from PC virtualization:
Ooookay, let's see...
compiling would be done over a huge grid of computers,
People who compile will have their own computers for sure. Isn't the general consensus that the everthing-is-a-Google-web-app world is for the unwashed masses?:-)
video games would be faster because the client/server communications barrier would no longer exist (well, it still would exist, but it'd mostly be sending images to the user's computer, and then the user sending short commands back),
ROTFL. Welcome to the world of X Window, VNC, and remote displays.
But let's check if the games would be faster:-) Let's say the game runs at 1600x1200 resolution. That means a single screen is 1.92 megapixels. Each pixel needs three bytes of RGB data, so that's 5.76Mb for a single screen. We want to have 60 fps for twitchy games, so we need the bandwidth of 5.76 * 60 = 345.6MB / second which is around 3.5 Gigabits/second. A dedicated OC-48 line (2.5 Gbits/sec) won't cut it, we'll need at least OC-192 going into each house ('cause more than one person might want to play games simultaneously).
Yeah, definitely, this will solve all the network lag problems...
all your data would be automatically backed up and secured,
Until the rats in a warehouse in Calcutta chew through the backup tapes...
and the world would have less environmental damage due to outdated computers with lead parts.
Umm.. what would be that thing that talks to Google servers -- the one with the screen, the keyboard, the network interface, the video chip, the sound chip, etc. etc.? Maybe a computer?
What good is it to publish software vulnerability, especially on closed source products?
A strange question. People who use these closed-source products (aka "the customers") would certainly be interested in knowing the true capabilities (or lack thereof) of the software they bought. People who are thinking about purchasing that software would be interested as well.
The head-in-the-sand technique doesn't work all that well in real life.
If I am running an anti-virus program, I most certainly want to know if that program is a close relative of swiss cheese...
If one really wants to help, isn't it better to inform the software maker? If the latter couldn't care less, maybe one shouldn't care more?
More strange questions... Let's see, there was this car, called Pinto, and its maker (Ford) for a while couldn't have cared less about certain umm... deficiencies in its construction and design. Are you suggesting that the proper response to the manufacturer's saying "I don't care" is replying "Oh, how wonderful, this means all is right in the world then"..?
It is possible the the library owns these copies of each image
It is possible, but not very likely.
Copyright protection extends to CREATIVE works only. An exact reproduction of an image is not protected by the copyright because no creativity is employed.
in each case each archive owns their copy of the image so you can only use a copy of their copy under their terms and conditions
Umm... two comments. First, the archive "owns" their copy of the image in the meaning that they are free to give it to you or not. That's all fine. They can even give it to you only subject to a contract in which you agree to give up some of your rights, like a right to redistribute the image.
Second, the archive may want you to think that they own the copyright to the image. They may even believe it themselves. That does not make it so in reality.
Basically if you start redistributing these digital copies, the archive might be able to successfully sue you for breach of contract, but I doubt it very much they'll be able to sue you for copyright infringement.
Hmm... NYPL wants to charge a fee for providing a high-rez image. That's fine -- someone has to pay the expenses and charging for delivering to me a public-domain image is OK.
However, quoting from http://www.nypl.org/permissions/newpermissions.htm l : "If ordering reproductions for personal, research or study purposes only (with no publication rights granted) the fee is $30.00 per image." (emphasis mine)
Umm... where did this right to grant or deny publication rights appear from? If I get a public-domain image, from NYPL or anyone else, I should have the right to publish it as I see fit -- it's in public domain, isn't it? Is NYPL trying to get itself copyright-like rights through contracts (presumably you agree to some contract when you order the image)?
Moreover, there is a use fee schedule (http://www.nypl.org/permissions/UseFeeSchedule8_1.PDF) which explicitly sets prices depending on WHO redistributes the images and HOW MANY image copies will be redistributed. This is all normal and standard operating procedure in the copyright world, but again, aren't many of the images we are talking about in public domain?
Why I should pay a different sum of money to NYPL if I want to distribute 100 copies or 100,000 copies of a public-domain image?
Will TV show production companies be the first to show some sense and offer their own downloads on a pay per view basis?
Pay per VIEW basis is the holy grail of the entertainment industry -- they would *love* to charge you every time you glance in the direction of a copyrighted work...
However what most people seem to want is pay per DOWNLOAD and then be able to view the show whenever they like. For some reason this presents a problem to media execs.
But anyway, it's not like it's hard to buy a DVD (or get it from Netflix) and rip it...
is the equivalent of saying that, since libraries are essential to the transmission of information, the government cannot request that the book "Practical Guide to Terrorist Attacks" be taken off library shelves.
Newsflash for you. In the United States, the goverment CANNOT request that such a book be taken off library shelves. And that's a good thing.
The truth is that P2P networks have made absolutely no effort to provide even minimal safeguards against copyright infringement.
LOL. You know, the phone companies made absolutely no effort to provide even minimal safeguards against criminals using their equipment and networks to plan nefarious deeds. The federal government made absolutely no effort to provide even minimal safeguards against bank robbers using the highway system to get to the banks.
The industries have every right to demand that P2P networks be held to the same standards that other transmission methods are held
Aah, I see you are getting it:-) Since "other transmission methods" are not required to provide any safeguards, the P2P networks shouldn't be either. I agree:-)
I don't understand why anyone except a small group of enthusiasts would still play PC games.
Two main reasons.
Reason number one: the games I play are for PC. I play MMORGS (e.g. World of Warcraft), FPS (e.g. Unreal), tactical RTS (w.g. Rise of Rome). None of them are available or play well on consoles.
Reason number two: TV sucks (and I mean REALLY sucks) as a display device.
I dunno...I think it says the average person, is an idiot. And, if you've ever had to work retail or food service while growing up...this will confirm that this is true. And NOT just with computer use...
The emergence of MP3 players has been built on the availability of terrabytes of stolen material being circulated. Is it in Sony's best interest to implicitly support this movement through the introduction of MP3 devices that will undoubtably be used to play, and encourag further dissemination of, pirated Sony content? I don't think it's an easy question to answer, and I can understand Sony's hesitancy.
"You hear that, Mr. Anderson? That is the sound of inevitability."
But why does nobody seem to care about openness in digital cameras?
Well, for obvious reasons:-) Digital cameras are not general-purpose computing devices. They are tightly intergrated single-use devices which include a lot of custom hardware that tends to change every six months or so.
In any case, I am not sure what are you trying to achieve. If you want to take a stab at better image processing, high-end digital cameras give you "raw" files with more-or-less-raw data from the sensor -- go play with it. If you want to control the camera from a computer, again, there are cameras which will allow you to do that. If you want to hack around with the code in the camera, it's also possible -- I know of at least one hack which adds capabilities to a Canon Digital Rebel...
Poor boy, you've been indoctrinated by American propaganda.
LOL. Think so? I am fairly sure I know much more about Communism than you and it has nothing to do with *American* propaganda...
In a true Communist state, as defined by Marx, the people own the code. Period.
Techincally speaking you're wrong on at least two counts. First, under Communism as described by Marx there would be no state at all. So talking about a "Communist state" is nonsense by definition. Second, under Communism (again, as described by Marx) there would be no property rights. This means that there's no such concept as property -- and that's very different from "people own the code".
You might also have noticed that I was talking about "communist/socialist" system -- meaning the socioeconomic system that actually existed in places like Soviet Union, China, etc. Some people call it communist (and they call e.g. Sweden socialist). Other people call it socialist (and they call only theoretical Marx's constructs "true" communism". That's a standard terminology mess when talking about this topic.
Fascism typically engages in Corporatism, where the state and corporations work together to minimize the power of the working class. Thus, by that definition, the corporation and the state own your code.
Nice handwaving. Can you be more explicit about the logical jump from "working together to minimize the power of the working class" to a programmer not being legally able to own his code?
Besides, under Marxist analyst a programmer is basically a skilled craftsman and occupies a position between working class and bourgeoisie...
Why is the word communist a deragatory term now a days.
Maybe because most people who called themselves communists turned out to be umm... not very nice..? Stalin called himself a communist, as did Mao, as did Pol Pot...
n a regular corporation, much of the capital becomes wealth distributed to executives who put it into their yacht fund, which in essence is punishing shareholders
Shareholders who don't like this can take their capital elsewhere, right?
You think the corporation is top-heavy and inefficient? Sell the shares...
It makes you wonder how efficient capitalism really is in the endgame when most competitors have been washed out and locked out of the market.
Umm... what's the endgame? And don't you wonder why were most "competitors" washed out? (I assume you mean communism/socialism and feudalism -- any other competitors you have in mind?).
Capitalism is definitely not perfect but I am yet to see a viable alternative...
Part of Gates' argument is that in China prior to market reform, musicians were not paid. That's simply stupid. Anyone who knows anything about "Communist" regimes knows that all the ones that have existed, including China, still had money, and people got paid for their work (usually by the government).
Not exactly. Gates' argument is that the musicians in communist China had no property rights in their creations and thus had no incentive to create something good.
They did get paid -- if they had an official job, that is -- but they were paid a fixed sum per month regardless of the quality of music they produced.
Slashdot Mirror
But letting other people make digital copies of a non-free copyrighted work is almost certainly not within fair use rights.
I don't agree. Do you have reasoning/sources to back you up?
Can I make a copy of a music CD to play in the car? What if me and my wife share the car -- do you think it's legal for her to listen to it? What about if it's her car and only she uses it? Can I make a copy for my mom who doesn't live with me? for a friend? Can I make a copy not knowing whom I'd give it to?
It's not all that simple.
And no, the RIAA isn't going to sue you for making and mp3 rip of your friend's CD (although they would be within their rights to do sue).
I have strong doubts that they will be within their rights to sue. I suspect this will fall well within fair use.
I don't know of a single attempt to prosecute a case like this. Do you?
Steam is the only direct-to-consumer internet-based game delivery service.
Umm... no. I bought a lot of games by going to a website, paying with a credit card, and downloading the game. That's "direct-to-consumer" and definitely "internet-based" game delivery to my hard drive.
Insomuch as a direct client-to-server experience with direct payment capacity in the client.
And why do I want a direct payment capability in the client? I don't. My web browser gives me all "direct payment capability" I need.
You trash it because it is the only one available and the only one that has performed.
LOL. It hasn't performed and that's why a lot of people are trashing it.
But anyway, my problems with Steam are not performance. They are that Steam doesn't want to be just a "delivery service". It wants to have ongoing control over what I do at my machine.
Why in the world don't I get a say in whether my game on my hard drive get patched or not? And why in hell would Steam throw a hissy fit if I decide to mess with game files -- again, my game files on my hard drive?
I want games that I will play on my own terms. I don't want a piece of software that will decide what's good for me and what's not.
The truth is very simple...
2.) Copyright infringement of other people's stuff, no matter how many people try to justify it, is ethically wrong.
Umm.. don't you have to define your ethics first before deciding what's ethically wrong and what's right?
Not everyone thinks as you do and, more importantly, not everyone holds the same set of moral values as you do. Unless you think that only YOUR ethics are right and everyone else who disagrees is wrong, I don't see how you can say that copyright infringement is always ethically bad.
Guy breaks EULA, guy reverse engineers copyright protection code, guy publishes way to break company's proprietary document protection code, company gets understandably upset and pursues legal options. Ho-hum. Why should Adobe have acted any differently.
Well, you know, some of us would prefer to live in a world where you can get into trouble because you broke a law, not just because you upset a large company.
Breaking EULA? Umm... Sklyarov is a Russian citizen and did all his work in Russia. Care to show me some decisions by Russian courts which say that Adobe EULA has any legal standing in Russia?
Reverse engineering code? That's expressly legal in Russia and US.
Publishing ways to break document protection code? Even if you think that DMCA is a good thing, again, Sklyarov is a Russian and did his work in Russia. Since when DMCA is binding on non-Americans?
Yes, Adobe makes the best imaging software. No, I'm not going to boycott them over the Sklyarov issue. But to say that Adobe did the right thing in this case is pushing it too far. Adobe was wrong.
No sane person should connect a critical piece of computer infrastructure ... to the internet.
ROTFL...
Quickly! Disconnect the backbone from the internet! Unplug the DNS root servers! Take the routers offline! Cut the cables leading into Mae East! The internet is too dangerous!!!
30 FPS is all you need visually.
:-)
:-)
Sigh. You're wrong. I told you to Google it and you didn't
Very briefly, when you're watching an object moving fast in a movie each frame will have not a sharp image of that object in a slightly different place, but a smudge. The fact that it's a smudge, more or less continuous between adjacent frames, is what allows movies to run at 30 fps and look smooth.
Computer games, unless specifically programmed for that particular effect, do not have smudges. Each frame is perfectly sharp. This creates jerkiness as a sharply defined object jumps from place to place as frames change. That's why 30 fps is a bare minimum and not the optimum.
Anyway, this is very easy to determine. Play Quake or Unreal at 30 fps, and then play it at 60 fps. Now tell me it feels the same
and you only need to ensure that 30 FPS goes down the pipe.
Double sigh. No, you need to ensure that 30 FPS COMES OUT OF THE PIPE. A small spike in network lag and your fps crashes with a loud thud.
Generally speaking, you are correct. However, let me point out a few matters which complicate things.
Not all software development environments use compilation. Once you peek out of the box of C and friends (C++, Java) you'll find things like Perl, List, etc. where the wait-for-compile stage is noticeably absent.
Moreover, if a large chunk of your programming time is spent waiting for things to compile, I would argue that either you need better tools, or your project is badly structured.
In any case, a rather small percentage of the general population does things like compiling and the needs of professional programmers are unlikely to be important in determining the trade-offs of web-based applications...
Ah next up, the big one, games. Let's rework your calculations a bit, since they're a bit.. shady
:-) Well, let's rework them, but let's agree that I don't want to lose image quality if I am to switch over to web-based games.
:-)
I currently play most of my 3D games (e.g. World of Warcraft, UT 2004) at 1280 x 960 resolution. I usually play other games (e.g. Civ III) at full 1600 x 1200, but we'll leave it aside at the moment. I am most definitely unwilling to play games at 800 x 600.
So, 1280 * 960 = slightly over 1.2 MPixels. Since we are transfering bitmaps we don't need the alpha channel, just the RGB values, 3 bytes/pixel. So we have 3.6 Mb of data per screen.
As to framerate, 30 fps is the *bare minimum* for fast-paced games. Note that 30 fps for a computer game is very different from 30 fps for a movie. Google for it, it's a bit too long to discuss here. But for the sake of argument let's say 30 fps is enough, so our uncompressed data flow is around 110 Mb/second.
Now, compression. I don't want ugly artifacts on my screen -- I don't have them now and see no reason to acquire them. This means we are going to do high-quality compression. Ratio of 1:3 should be more or less in the ballpark, so we have a data flow of around 35 Mb/sec which is more or less 350 Mbits/sec.
But now the interesting question. Network lag in games is caused by latency and almost never by lack of sufficient bandwidth. And sending bitmaps over the net will help latency by about... zero. So right now to play multiplayer games I need bandwidth of, oh, say 3.5Kb/sec. You are suggesting that to continue playing such games I need to increase my bandwidth by FOUR ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE and for what? Network lag will still be there.
All you've done is offload graphic processing over to the server. Basically you took the graphics card out of the computer, put it on a server, and decided to implement the video bus over TCP/IP
If they lose your data, they're responsible and they can and should be sued.
OK. But then they'll need the money to pay the lawyers and the cost of lawsuits, right? Where will this money be coming from? Umm... right, so it will be coming from your monthly fee...
Google's servers are a order of magnitude more environmentally safe: They're likely to stay on the rack for 10-20 years,
I very much doubt the Google's machines will stay on the rack for 10-20 years... But that's irrelevant in any case -- I wasn't talking about servers. I was talking about the device that would be in your home and that you would use to access Google's servers.
This device -- it will have a monitor, right? And a keyboard? Speakers, too? Hmm... it will need a video chip to send the signal to the monitor, it will need a sound chip to send the signal to the speakers, it will need a NIC to deal with ethernet packets, it will need a microprocessor to run code locally, it will need RAM for the same reason...
By golly! It's a computer!!
Today, think of the benefits from PC virtualization:
:-)
:-) Let's say the game runs at 1600x1200 resolution. That means a single screen is 1.92 megapixels. Each pixel needs three bytes of RGB data, so that's 5.76Mb for a single screen. We want to have 60 fps for twitchy games, so we need the bandwidth of 5.76 * 60 = 345.6MB / second which is around 3.5 Gigabits/second. A dedicated OC-48 line (2.5 Gbits/sec) won't cut it, we'll need at least OC-192 going into each house ('cause more than one person might want to play games simultaneously).
Ooookay, let's see...
compiling would be done over a huge grid of computers,
People who compile will have their own computers for sure. Isn't the general consensus that the everthing-is-a-Google-web-app world is for the unwashed masses?
video games would be faster because the client/server communications barrier would no longer exist (well, it still would exist, but it'd mostly be sending images to the user's computer, and then the user sending short commands back),
ROTFL. Welcome to the world of X Window, VNC, and remote displays.
But let's check if the games would be faster
Yeah, definitely, this will solve all the network lag problems...
all your data would be automatically backed up and secured,
Until the rats in a warehouse in Calcutta chew through the backup tapes...
and the world would have less environmental damage due to outdated computers with lead parts.
Umm.. what would be that thing that talks to Google servers -- the one with the screen, the keyboard, the network interface, the video chip, the sound chip, etc. etc.? Maybe a computer?
What good is it to publish software vulnerability, especially on closed source products?
A strange question. People who use these closed-source products (aka "the customers") would certainly be interested in knowing the true capabilities (or lack thereof) of the software they bought. People who are thinking about purchasing that software would be interested as well.
The head-in-the-sand technique doesn't work all that well in real life.
If I am running an anti-virus program, I most certainly want to know if that program is a close relative of swiss cheese...
If one really wants to help, isn't it better to inform the software maker? If the latter couldn't care less, maybe one shouldn't care more?
More strange questions... Let's see, there was this car, called Pinto, and its maker (Ford) for a while couldn't have cared less about certain umm... deficiencies in its construction and design. Are you suggesting that the proper response to the manufacturer's saying "I don't care" is replying "Oh, how wonderful, this means all is right in the world then"..?
The music companies are totally right in doing this.
:-)
They do have LEGAL RIGHTS to do this, yes.
Whether they are MORALLY RIGHT is up to your particular morality, and there's a wide variety out there
Yet another question is whether this is a RIGHT THING TO DO from a business viewpoint. Or from a public-good viewpoint. Again, answers vary.
Isn't this exactly what we asked for?
:-)
Who's that "we"?
I have no idea what YOU asked for -- if you asked for these lawsuits, well, , you got what you asked for.
For my part, I was asking for RIAA and MPAA to be busted up as corrupt criminal organizations and prosecuted under RICO. I'm still waiting...
It is possible the the library owns these copies of each image
It is possible, but not very likely.
Copyright protection extends to CREATIVE works only. An exact reproduction of an image is not protected by the copyright because no creativity is employed.
in each case each archive owns their copy of the image so you can only use a copy of their copy under their terms and conditions
Umm... two comments. First, the archive "owns" their copy of the image in the meaning that they are free to give it to you or not. That's all fine. They can even give it to you only subject to a contract in which you agree to give up some of your rights, like a right to redistribute the image.
Second, the archive may want you to think that they own the copyright to the image. They may even believe it themselves. That does not make it so in reality.
Basically if you start redistributing these digital copies, the archive might be able to successfully sue you for breach of contract, but I doubt it very much they'll be able to sue you for copyright infringement.
Hmm... NYPL wants to charge a fee for providing a high-rez image. That's fine -- someone has to pay the expenses and charging for delivering to me a public-domain image is OK.
m l : "If ordering reproductions for personal, research or study purposes only (with no publication rights granted) the fee is $30.00 per image." (emphasis mine)
1 .PDF) which explicitly sets prices depending on WHO redistributes the images and HOW MANY image copies will be redistributed. This is all normal and standard operating procedure in the copyright world, but again, aren't many of the images we are talking about in public domain?
However, quoting from http://www.nypl.org/permissions/newpermissions.ht
Umm... where did this right to grant or deny publication rights appear from? If I get a public-domain image, from NYPL or anyone else, I should have the right to publish it as I see fit -- it's in public domain, isn't it? Is NYPL trying to get itself copyright-like rights through contracts (presumably you agree to some contract when you order the image)?
Moreover, there is a use fee schedule (http://www.nypl.org/permissions/UseFeeSchedule8_
Why I should pay a different sum of money to NYPL if I want to distribute 100 copies or 100,000 copies of a public-domain image?
Will TV show production companies be the first to show some sense and offer their own downloads on a pay per view basis?
Pay per VIEW basis is the holy grail of the entertainment industry -- they would *love* to charge you every time you glance in the direction of a copyrighted work...
However what most people seem to want is pay per DOWNLOAD and then be able to view the show whenever they like. For some reason this presents a problem to media execs.
But anyway, it's not like it's hard to buy a DVD (or get it from Netflix) and rip it...
is the equivalent of saying that, since libraries are essential to the transmission of information, the government cannot request that the book "Practical Guide to Terrorist Attacks" be taken off library shelves.
:-) Since "other transmission methods" are not required to provide any safeguards, the P2P networks shouldn't be either. I agree :-)
Newsflash for you. In the United States, the goverment CANNOT request that such a book be taken off library shelves. And that's a good thing.
The truth is that P2P networks have made absolutely no effort to provide even minimal safeguards against copyright infringement.
LOL. You know, the phone companies made absolutely no effort to provide even minimal safeguards against criminals using their equipment and networks to plan nefarious deeds. The federal government made absolutely no effort to provide even minimal safeguards against bank robbers using the highway system to get to the banks.
The industries have every right to demand that P2P networks be held to the same standards that other transmission methods are held
Aah, I see you are getting it
I don't understand why anyone except a small group of enthusiasts would still play PC games.
Two main reasons.
Reason number one: the games I play are for PC. I play MMORGS (e.g. World of Warcraft), FPS (e.g. Unreal), tactical RTS (w.g. Rise of Rome). None of them are available or play well on consoles.
Reason number two: TV sucks (and I mean REALLY sucks) as a display device.
it is PERFECTLY legal for companies to ask you for your receipt and to inspect your bag.
It is perfectly legal for them the ASK, and it's perfectly legal for me to tell them to go to hell.
They do not have a RIGHT to search me and my bags.
I dunno...I think it says the average person, is an idiot. And, if you've ever had to work retail or food service while growing up...this will confirm that this is true. And NOT just with computer use...
:-)
See sig
The emergence of MP3 players has been built on the availability of terrabytes of stolen material being circulated. Is it in Sony's best interest to implicitly support this movement through the introduction of MP3 devices that will undoubtably be used to play, and encourag further dissemination of, pirated Sony content? I don't think it's an easy question to answer, and I can understand Sony's hesitancy.
"You hear that, Mr. Anderson? That is the sound of inevitability."
But why does nobody seem to care about openness in digital cameras?
:-) Digital cameras are not general-purpose computing devices. They are tightly intergrated single-use devices which include a lot of custom hardware that tends to change every six months or so.
Well, for obvious reasons
In any case, I am not sure what are you trying to achieve. If you want to take a stab at better image processing, high-end digital cameras give you "raw" files with more-or-less-raw data from the sensor -- go play with it. If you want to control the camera from a computer, again, there are cameras which will allow you to do that. If you want to hack around with the code in the camera, it's also possible -- I know of at least one hack which adds capabilities to a Canon Digital Rebel...
Poor boy, you've been indoctrinated by American propaganda.
LOL. Think so? I am fairly sure I know much more about Communism than you and it has nothing to do with *American* propaganda...
In a true Communist state, as defined by Marx, the people own the code. Period.
Techincally speaking you're wrong on at least two counts. First, under Communism as described by Marx there would be no state at all. So talking about a "Communist state" is nonsense by definition. Second, under Communism (again, as described by Marx) there would be no property rights. This means that there's no such concept as property -- and that's very different from "people own the code".
You might also have noticed that I was talking about "communist/socialist" system -- meaning the socioeconomic system that actually existed in places like Soviet Union, China, etc. Some people call it communist (and they call e.g. Sweden socialist). Other people call it socialist (and they call only theoretical Marx's constructs "true" communism". That's a standard terminology mess when talking about this topic.
Fascism typically engages in Corporatism, where the state and corporations work together to minimize the power of the working class. Thus, by that definition, the corporation and the state own your code.
Nice handwaving. Can you be more explicit about the logical jump from "working together to minimize the power of the working class" to a programmer not being legally able to own his code?
Besides, under Marxist analyst a programmer is basically a skilled craftsman and occupies a position between working class and bourgeoisie...
Why is the word communist a deragatory term now a days.
Maybe because most people who called themselves communists turned out to be umm... not very nice..? Stalin called himself a communist, as did Mao, as did Pol Pot...
n a regular corporation, much of the capital becomes wealth distributed to executives who put it into their yacht fund, which in essence is punishing shareholders
Shareholders who don't like this can take their capital elsewhere, right?
You think the corporation is top-heavy and inefficient? Sell the shares...
It makes you wonder how efficient capitalism really is in the endgame when most competitors have been washed out and locked out of the market.
Umm... what's the endgame? And don't you wonder why were most "competitors" washed out? (I assume you mean communism/socialism and feudalism -- any other competitors you have in mind?).
Capitalism is definitely not perfect but I am yet to see a viable alternative...
Part of Gates' argument is that in China prior to market reform, musicians were not paid. That's simply stupid. Anyone who knows anything about "Communist" regimes knows that all the ones that have existed, including China, still had money, and people got paid for their work (usually by the government).
Not exactly. Gates' argument is that the musicians in communist China had no property rights in their creations and thus had no incentive to create something good.
They did get paid -- if they had an official job, that is -- but they were paid a fixed sum per month regardless of the quality of music they produced.