It's interesting to think that Tim Berners-Lee at one time was pushing CERN to release all of the code for the World Wide Web (like http and html) under the GPL. He explains in Weaving the Web that some of the vendors seeking to capitalize on the Web (like Netscape) were concerned about the viral nature of the GPL. How much different would the web (and the world) be if the Web were part of the GNU project instead of in public domain? (I realize that releasing under GPL does not make a project part of GNU, but if the Web were GPL'd, would anyone use it outside of GNU?)
I think GNU is great, but I'm really glad the Web is what it is.
Exactly. Read Weaving the Web by Tim Berners-Lee for a good explanation of the origins of the WWW. A lot of the Web as we know it is a hacked version of Berners-Lee's original vision and intent. People weren't willing to make client programs text editors, so the Web became a publishing medium viewed with a browser instead of the interactive medium it was intended to be. It would be easy to display your browsing history as a hierarchy or as a link web, but it would probably take up more space on your screen. Display space is at a premium. (I wish Mozilla would let me interactively resize the tab buttons, for instance. They take up too much space.)
Sorry to be nitpicky, but I'm a biology major taking biochemistry right now. The genetic information in sperm and egg cells is encoded as DNA, not RNA. Genetic material in long-term storage is always DNA. The chromosomes that seperate during meiosis (gamete production) are DNA.
RNA is used for transcribing the information in DNA into "machine-readable" form that the cell uses to make proteins and such.
When two RNA molecules come together, they do not form DNA. The main difference between DNA and RNA is that DNA has a hydroxly (-OH) group removed from the ribose unit. That's why it's called "Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid." The absence of the -OH group is what allows for the double helix structure of DNA.
There are theories that early life in the primordial soup used RNA as its genetic storage molecule. It also has catalytic properties, so it is believed that RNA also catalyzed most of the reactions in early biochemical pathways. As life evolved the storage functions of RNA were taken over by the more stable DNA molecule and the catalytic functions were taken over by the more chemically diverse protein molecules. RNA was left as the middle man between DNA and proteins.
The double helix structure of DNA is amazingly stable and allows for easy manipulations, like replication and transcription. When Watson and Crick proposed the double helix structure in 1953, they said, "It has not escaped our notice that the specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material."
RNA is typically single-stranded and forms irregular structures that depend on the sequence of nucleotides. It will loop back on itself and form stem-loop structures and such.
"There's so much techological genius in these movies that the 'making of' stuff is worth the cost of the set to me. I haven't even watched the movies yet, I just opened disc 4 and started watching. GOOD STUFF."
Every once in a while there's really cool supplemental stuff in a CD, like videos or images or something. I also love reading the editorials written by music historians in the sleeves of rereleases of old albums remastered. I spent hours studying Eddie Vedder's drug-inspired doodles on the Vs. album. Same goes for Thom Yorke's doodles in OK Computer.
But that's not quite enough. Movies have something that music doesn't have. A large number of people are impressed by and can appreciate visual special effects. It's therefore obvious that people would want to pay extra for a DVD with a large section devoted the the creation of the film. I spent hours watching disc 2 of Attack of the Clones, even though I don't really dig the film. And how many people saw the movie just to see the special effects?
On the other hand, most people I know laugh at me for how thoroughly I read album sleeves and band biographies. They look at me funny when I stop and say something like, "Listen to this guitar line - isn't that cool? He routed his guitar through a flanger and a phase shifter in series...etc." There just isn't the demand for that sort of thing in the public. People just want to hear their Moby (or whatever). They don't want to know what kind of wah-wah pedal he uses or how he looped a particular sample. That's one reason why some technically brilliant bands aren't all that famous, like Kraftwerk, for instance. Their sound engineering is INCREDIBLE, especially considering that they were among the first to use a lot of the technology and techniques so common in music today. (The recording, mixing, and mastering for Electric Cafe (1986) was entirely digital.) I would repurchase all of my Kraftwerk collection at a higher price if there included notes about the making of the album, but I'm a music geek.
The DRM normally discussed at this forum is different from this. Windows Media-style DRM is for the purpose of protecting content from piracy (and fair use, in some cases). It's a way for a content provider to distribute his work to a large audience.
DRM on a digital camera is different. The camera is creating content, not just providing use of content. The same goes for Photoshop keeping logs of every manipulation. The only reason you would want this type of DRM is if you are concerned about the authenticity of content (like in law enforcement or scientific research). There is no motivation for digital camera makers to make DRM standard on their consumer devices. They don't have the RIAA/MPAA or anyone else demanding it.
Critics said the revisions were aimed at getting rid of dissenting board members who say the group is out of touch with Internet users.
Did this line jump out at anyone else? They were tired of people telling them that they were out of touch with internet users, so they decided to stop allowing internet users to elect members of the board. Isn't that like cutting off your leg because of an ingrown toenail?
Yeah, that line jumped out at me too. That was either a thoughtless wording or a betrayal of more evil schemes to come. We shall soon find out.
This is exactly the sort of definition meddling that propagandists have used for as long as propaganda has existed. The word "hacker" has been effectively redefined to include a connotation of devious intentions. The word "gay" has been redefined to refer to homosexualality. "Peer-to-peer filesharing" has been redefined by the IP industry as thievery and piracy. Now it appears that they would like to redefine "fair use" and "piracy" as a sort of overlapping venn diagram, with a middle ground which is actually both piracy and fair use. Then they can say, "If fair use includes piracy, then it must be bad." And the uninformed will say, "Hey, that makes sense. Down with Fair Use!" L. Lessig will then have to add another 10 min to his presentations explaining why the intersection of fair use and piracy = 0.
This issue is at the heart of the copyleft philosophy. The GNU GPL was originally intended to provide a way to give software to the public commons without granting anyone (including the author) the right to retract the offering. The big concern with writing free software was the possibility that someone could come along and steal from the public commons. Copyleft and the GNU GPL was their way of enforcing the rules of nice play.
RMS seems to be concerned that Linus is doing something like what the GPL was designed to prevent. GNU/Linux essentially took the entire work of the GNU project and espoused it to a project with differing ideals and philosophy. That's the heart of his problems with it - this name battle is an expression of that conflict which has erupted before in the name battle over FS/OS.
I am not advocating either side in this issue. I agree with ideals from both camps.
Read up on the various ways to distribute your music under different licenses. I personally like the EFF Open Audio License Many musicians are reluctant to make their music free as in free speech, however, so a free as in free beer licence may be more palatable to begin with.
I would like to see more artists using free as in free speech licenses. Remember that you don't have to use the license for all of your album. Most licenses allow you to license individual songs. You could choose to release your singles on the license and then restrict copying of your album tracks. That way you get publicity for your album through legitimate filesharing, you contribute to the musical commons, and your CD sales increase - all at the same time.
You also don't have to worry about piracy. What you're doing is effectively out-competing pirates by giving away what they would steal. There will be no market for their stolen product if everyone could just get it from you.
Read up on the various licenses, decide how you want to do it, and give it a try. That's what I did when I encountered the idea of copylefting music. I also went a step further and tried to write a persuasive essay on the subject (which is harder than you would expect). Not only did I learn a lot of the standard arguements and objections in my research, but I also solidified my own opinion and viewpoint.
I administer a small number of computers for a university research lab. We have a site-license for MS Office, which is what most of our researchers use. I configure all of our machines so that Word writes *.rtf by default. I haven't heard any complaints from any group members, or from my professor. I don't think they even noticed. I also use as much free software as I possibly can on group machines, and teach my group members how to use it.
If you administer computers for your company, change the default filetypes in MS Office to open ones. Most users won't even notice. Even fewer will complain. Those who absolutely HAVE to use *.doc can go ahead. But they'll be only a small percentage of your users.
I don't have authority to mandate that all of my group members use OpenOffice.org. But I do what I can here and there to further the cause and to prevent us from being locked into a proprietary prison.
What if all of the devices ran MS software? Your light switches, toaster, faucet, and could automatically call home and download the latest secutiy patches (complete with their newly-revised EULAs). Now MS would not only know what movies and music you enjoy, but also how often you use your microwave and toilet!
Case in point: obstetrical forceps were invented by an Englishman in the 1600's. He used his invention to save many mothers and babies from dying at childbirth. The knowledge of his invention was forgotten until the 1800's when someone found his storage trunk. He had jealously guarded his invention, sharing it with only a few family members. If he had been protected by patent law, he would probably have disclosed the details of his invention. This would have resulted in millions of babies and mothers saved from a terrible death.
Interesting attitude. You need to read up on the
history of copyright. It was originally intended "to promote the progress of science and useful arts." This is something that very few people understand, even many lawyers. The interpretation of copyright law has evolved into basically what you're describing, but that was not the original intent.
Here's a quote from yesterday'sinterview with Cary Sherman, President of the RIAA.
"Of course record companies want to embrace the technology for greater profits. That's what they've done before, and that's what they want to do again. How to do it isn't so clear or easy, however...[Later]...record companies have been working very hard at getting music on the Internet legally. That happens to be difficult - because you need the permission of the songwriters and music publishers, and in many cases the artists as well, and those clearances aren't easy to get. (Everyone is nervous about piracy, and trying to figure out how much revenue they should earn, and what the business model is going to be, etc.) And then there are the technical infrastructures that have to be built to account for downloads and streams and pay royalties to rightsowners; the security for the content; and so on. It's a lot easier to do it illegally (just post it, don't worry about security, and don't pay anybody anything); doing it legally takes time...[Later]...The technology in this area keeps changing, and improving. You mention Enhanced CDs. As it happens, lots of consumers have had trouble with Enhanced CDs, because they may not play on all devices. So every time you mess with computer technology, there are unexpected effects."
This WMP DRM business is a good example of what he was talking about. They have a difficult work to do if they want to embrace DRM and customers at the same time. Problems like this are unfortunate and (I believe) unacceptable, but are a natural consequence of what they're trying to do. I'd rather the music industry collapse from within, personally, but I'm not sure if that will happen.
I'm an undergraduate in biology who has taken quite a few genetics/microbiology courses. The parent is absolutely right (mod him up).
Genes do a number of things. Most genes that we understand fairly well function for coding proteins - the macromolecular machines that do almost everything in the cell (determine, maintain, and change structure of the cell; catalyse chemical reactions; regulate processes; etc...). Genes that do this are _relatively_ easy to understand, as we can usually observe where the protein is and what it interacts with. Quite a few genes serve as regulators for the transcription of protein-encoding genes. For each protein-encoding gene, there may be a dozen or more regulator genes. These regulators can have either a positive or negative effect on the transcription, so the rate at which the protein-coding gene is transcribed depends on the sum of the influences of the regulators (which themselves are also regulated). The vast mojority of mammalian genes that have been identified have unknown functions. The gene described here could be protein-encoding. It could be a regulator. It could be a developmental gene that starts a cascade of regulators during fetal development.
A genome is not analogous to a blueprint, as is comonly thought. That's actually quite a poor analogy. A better analogy is that individual genes are like congressman in the House of Representatives. They bicker and fight sometimes and work together other times. It is mainly the sum of their actions that we observe, not the idivudual debates and compromises. We can only conjecture about those.
I'm an advocate of Free (as in free speech) Music, mainly because I have an open mind. I like to consider new ideas and new options liberally, giving the benefit of a doubt before formulating my opinion. When I first encountered the notion of GPLing music I considered it, read some more about it, tried it, and decided that it was a good thing. I used a similar process while reading this interview. I read with an open and impartial mind. I was sort of surprised at how much sense he made. To give a few examples:
"Yes, I do believe that most people are honest and would pay a reasonable amount for convenience and quality. What I also believe is that it doesn't take much for people to justify not paying. If it's a major artist, they say "they're already rich enough." If it's an unknown artist, they say "I'm doing her a favor by promoting her work." But in the end, convenience will count for a lot; and security will count for even more (only now are the security flaws in P2P systems becoming known, not to mention the privacy risks). So I'm optimistic about the prospects for legitimate businesses online."
He makes some good points here. His justifications for not purchasing music are right on. I've encountered those very opinions here on/. and elsewhere. He also has a good point about convenience counting for a lot. I think that's where Emusic.com could really make a killing. Trying to find what you want on a P2P can be more trouble than its worth (time = money). Going to Emusic is easy as pie (when they actually have what you want, that is). I'm not so sure about his security concerns, though. I personally feel more insecure giving my personal information to Mp3.com before downloading or streaming.
"...record companies have been working very hard at getting music on the Internet legally. That happens to be difficult - because you need the permission of the songwriters and music publishers, and in many cases the artists as well, and those clearances aren't easy to get. (Everyone is nervous about piracy, and trying to figure out how much revenue they should earn, and what the business model is going to be, etc.) And then there are the technical infrastructures that have to be built to account for downloads and streams and pay royalties to rightsowners; the security for the content; and so on. It's a lot easier to do it illegally (just post it, don't worry about security, and don't pay anybody anything); doing it legally takes time. But the companies are getting there. There are a lot of subscription services that are up and running with lots of content; more companies are allowing more downloading, and burning; there's a lot of experimentation on pricing. In other words, a real market is emerging!"
He's got a point. They're trying to fit their old 70's marketing stragegy into the new market of cyberspace. That's no easy task! It's like trying to fit a Ford V8 into a 17th century horse cart.:)
I found an interesting tidbit about the origin of the name "Godzilla." It seems to be a combination of two Japanese words translated awkwardly to English (like trying to read an Excel 97 spreadsheet in Excel 2000).
It's great to see top-quality software developed for Linux. I absolutely love The GIMP. It's so amazingly useful. I'm also impressed with Mozilla and Xsane.
Here's my wish-list: I've been searching for a multitrack recorder for Linux but I haven't been satisfied with anything I've tried. I have experience with Win32 applications ranging from the high-end (Samplitude) to the lower (n-Track Studio). These were all easy to install and use. But I've run into lots of problems with various Linux applications (GLAME, SLab, and Multitrack). I'm a newbie, so maybe I just have no idea how to install and configure correctly. But if that's the case, then why don't we develop something easier to install and configure? Most musicians aren't software enginers (I'm not). Make it easy for us!
Am I not looking hard enough or is there really nothing out there for multitrack recording on GNU/Linux? Should I wait for OpenBeOS? Any suggestions will be appreciated.
I agree with you intellectually, but I don't feel it emotionally yet. I guess I've just been trained in the proprietary way. Most people have. It's difficult to see the doctrine of inherent ownership as mere propaganda from the content industry if you've been taught all your life that it is the unquestionable truth.
It also requires a big cultural change. These ideas are not shared by the masses. To disbelieve in inherent ownership is a radical view. That doesn't mean it's wrong, it's just unpopular. Intentionally espousing an unpopular view usually makes for bad karma in the world at large (something that we should understand here at/.).
I want to be certain about the ideas I endorse. Most people don't want to have to make a fundamental change of their world view and become radicals until they are convinced that the idea is 100% good. That's why education is so important. Proprietary's grip on my philosophy is weakening. We need to educate more people.
I've read various editorials about copyright law. The basic point of many of them is this: The U.S. Constitution grants congress the right "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" The practice of using copyright law for the hoarding intellectual property is in many ways destructive to "the progress of science and useful arts." Current interpretation of copyright law is, by this arguement, inconsistent with the original intent of the law.
I was speaking with a friend of mine recently about his law practice. Because of my interest in the free software movement, I asked him if he ever works in copyright law. He does quite a bit. I asked him to explain the original intent of copyright law. He said that it was to protect inventors and authors from having their work stolen from them - to secure to them the rights to receive the benefits of their ideas. He didn't mention anything about "the progress of science and useful arts."
I told him my reason for asking about copyright and explained the basics of the GNU GPL. It turns out that he's one of the regional lawyers for Microsoft. It was counter-intuitive to him that people would contribute to a product as a peer-production effort without receiving a direct monetary reward. His impression of the open source community was that they are a bunch of hooligan pirates who don't want to pay for anything and will steal intellectual property rather than pay for it.
This was rather shocking to me because I'm not a pirate. I don't have any illegally-obtained recordings, movies, or software. I don't share my copies with those who ask. I view open source as a superior development model, not as a malicious piracy scheme.
What I learned from this experience is that we need to do more educating of people. We need to teach people that the free software movement has noble intentions. We have an entirely different business model and product development procedure. We don't do business the same way Microsoft does. That's offputting to people who can imagine nothing but proprietary ownership.
This post is long, but I'd like to make one more point: Why does fundamental ownership of a creation have to be a problem? I think a programmer who puts his sweat and tears into code has a fundamental right to he benefits of his work. I feel personally attached to songs that I record. Copyleft is about using that fundamental right of ownership to set the creation free and to allow others freedom to use it. In order to be able to set something free, you must first own that something.
Ray Bradbury wrote an excellent book called Dandelion Wine. It gives the summer adventures of two fictional young boys as a collection of short stories. The stories follow a roughly chronological sequence and contain elements introduced in other stories, but each one can be read and understood independently of all the others. It is unlike Bradbury's The Martian Chronicles because there is a definite overall plot in the aggregation of stories. The Martian Chronicles is just a collection of related stories that do not compose an overall plot.
If I understood you correctly, these were some of the ideas you had. These two books are worth a read if you'd like to see what's been done before.
I have killer pipes at my university - which is where I spend all of my time anyway. So I decided to disconnect my home computer from the internet to save a few dollars a month (and frustration from my 56K modem;). But I often create small files at home that I need to upload to my web page - like image files and low resolution oggs and such. A 1.44 MB floppy is great for these applications. It's irksome to burn a CD when the file is small enough to put it on a floppy or two.
My first exposure to RMS was on the GNU website. I went there wanting to learn more about the origins of the free software movement. I read philosophy section with great interest. I particularly liked the GNU Manifesto. I think RMS is a really persuasive writer with some good ideas. I didn't agree with every point, but as a whole I was very impressed.
Armed with my new ideas about "free as in free speech" I decided to write a manifesto for Free Music. I shared an early draft of it with my brother and suggested to him that we release our recordings on a free music license. He did not like the idea at all, and was disturbed by the manifesto.
I went back to my computer, opened up the document in OpenOffice and read through it again. I realised that the arguments I had adapted from GNU were just too extreme to be embraced by the uninformed public, especially by the artist community. I wanted my manifesto to be persuasive to the average musician, not just to those who happen to have read all of the philosophy section of the GNU website. I think a more effective way to "evangelize" open source projects is to emphasize the superiority of the development model for human creativity projects.
So now I'm not sure what to think of RMS. His views are extreme, and they don't sell very well to the average person. But extremeism is needed, so let him do all that he can to further the cause.
Slashdot Mirror
It's interesting to think that Tim Berners-Lee at one time was pushing CERN to release all of the code for the World Wide Web (like http and html) under the GPL. He explains in Weaving the Web that some of the vendors seeking to capitalize on the Web (like Netscape) were concerned about the viral nature of the GPL. How much different would the web (and the world) be if the Web were part of the GNU project instead of in public domain? (I realize that releasing under GPL does not make a project part of GNU, but if the Web were GPL'd, would anyone use it outside of GNU?)
I think GNU is great, but I'm really glad the Web is what it is.
Exactly. Read Weaving the Web by Tim Berners-Lee for a good explanation of the origins of the WWW. A lot of the Web as we know it is a hacked version of Berners-Lee's original vision and intent. People weren't willing to make client programs text editors, so the Web became a publishing medium viewed with a browser instead of the interactive medium it was intended to be. It would be easy to display your browsing history as a hierarchy or as a link web, but it would probably take up more space on your screen. Display space is at a premium. (I wish Mozilla would let me interactively resize the tab buttons, for instance. They take up too much space.)
Sorry to be nitpicky, but I'm a biology major taking biochemistry right now. The genetic information in sperm and egg cells is encoded as DNA, not RNA. Genetic material in long-term storage is always DNA. The chromosomes that seperate during meiosis (gamete production) are DNA.
RNA is used for transcribing the information in DNA into "machine-readable" form that the cell uses to make proteins and such.
When two RNA molecules come together, they do not form DNA. The main difference between DNA and RNA is that DNA has a hydroxly (-OH) group removed from the ribose unit. That's why it's called "Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid." The absence of the -OH group is what allows for the double helix structure of DNA.
There are theories that early life in the primordial soup used RNA as its genetic storage molecule. It also has catalytic properties, so it is believed that RNA also catalyzed most of the reactions in early biochemical pathways. As life evolved the storage functions of RNA were taken over by the more stable DNA molecule and the catalytic functions were taken over by the more chemically diverse protein molecules. RNA was left as the middle man between DNA and proteins.
The double helix structure of DNA is amazingly stable and allows for easy manipulations, like replication and transcription. When Watson and Crick proposed the double helix structure in 1953, they said, "It has not escaped our notice that the specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material."
RNA is typically single-stranded and forms irregular structures that depend on the sequence of nucleotides. It will loop back on itself and form stem-loop structures and such.
Anyway, that's your biochem lecture for today.
"There's so much techological genius in these movies that the 'making of' stuff is worth the cost of the set to me. I haven't even watched the movies yet, I just opened disc 4 and started watching. GOOD STUFF."
Every once in a while there's really cool supplemental stuff in a CD, like videos or images or something. I also love reading the editorials written by music historians in the sleeves of rereleases of old albums remastered. I spent hours studying Eddie Vedder's drug-inspired doodles on the Vs. album. Same goes for Thom Yorke's doodles in OK Computer.
But that's not quite enough. Movies have something that music doesn't have. A large number of people are impressed by and can appreciate visual special effects. It's therefore obvious that people would want to pay extra for a DVD with a large section devoted the the creation of the film. I spent hours watching disc 2 of Attack of the Clones, even though I don't really dig the film. And how many people saw the movie just to see the special effects?
On the other hand, most people I know laugh at me for how thoroughly I read album sleeves and band biographies. They look at me funny when I stop and say something like, "Listen to this guitar line - isn't that cool? He routed his guitar through a flanger and a phase shifter in series...etc." There just isn't the demand for that sort of thing in the public. People just want to hear their Moby (or whatever). They don't want to know what kind of wah-wah pedal he uses or how he looped a particular sample. That's one reason why some technically brilliant bands aren't all that famous, like Kraftwerk, for instance. Their sound engineering is INCREDIBLE, especially considering that they were among the first to use a lot of the technology and techniques so common in music today. (The recording, mixing, and mastering for Electric Cafe (1986) was entirely digital.) I would repurchase all of my Kraftwerk collection at a higher price if there included notes about the making of the album, but I'm a music geek.
The DRM normally discussed at this forum is different from this. Windows Media-style DRM is for the purpose of protecting content from piracy (and fair use, in some cases). It's a way for a content provider to distribute his work to a large audience.
DRM on a digital camera is different. The camera is creating content, not just providing use of content. The same goes for Photoshop keeping logs of every manipulation. The only reason you would want this type of DRM is if you are concerned about the authenticity of content (like in law enforcement or scientific research). There is no motivation for digital camera makers to make DRM standard on their consumer devices. They don't have the RIAA/MPAA or anyone else demanding it.
Critics said the revisions were aimed at getting rid of dissenting board members who say the group is out of touch with Internet users.
Did this line jump out at anyone else? They were tired of people telling them that they were out of touch with internet users, so they decided to stop allowing internet users to elect members of the board. Isn't that like cutting off your leg because of an ingrown toenail?
Or am I just out of touch with the politics here?
This is exactly the sort of definition meddling that propagandists have used for as long as propaganda has existed. The word "hacker" has been effectively redefined to include a connotation of devious intentions. The word "gay" has been redefined to refer to homosexualality. "Peer-to-peer filesharing" has been redefined by the IP industry as thievery and piracy. Now it appears that they would like to redefine "fair use" and "piracy" as a sort of overlapping venn diagram, with a middle ground which is actually both piracy and fair use. Then they can say, "If fair use includes piracy, then it must be bad." And the uninformed will say, "Hey, that makes sense. Down with Fair Use!" L. Lessig will then have to add another 10 min to his presentations explaining why the intersection of fair use and piracy = 0.
Let's hope it was merely a thoughtless wording...
RMS seems to be concerned that Linus is doing something like what the GPL was designed to prevent. GNU/Linux essentially took the entire work of the GNU project and espoused it to a project with differing ideals and philosophy. That's the heart of his problems with it - this name battle is an expression of that conflict which has erupted before in the name battle over FS/OS.
I am not advocating either side in this issue. I agree with ideals from both camps.
I would like to see more artists using free as in free speech licenses. Remember that you don't have to use the license for all of your album. Most licenses allow you to license individual songs. You could choose to release your singles on the license and then restrict copying of your album tracks. That way you get publicity for your album through legitimate filesharing, you contribute to the musical commons, and your CD sales increase - all at the same time.
You also don't have to worry about piracy. What you're doing is effectively out-competing pirates by giving away what they would steal. There will be no market for their stolen product if everyone could just get it from you.
Read up on the various licenses, decide how you want to do it, and give it a try. That's what I did when I encountered the idea of copylefting music. I also went a step further and tried to write a persuasive essay on the subject (which is harder than you would expect). Not only did I learn a lot of the standard arguements and objections in my research, but I also solidified my own opinion and viewpoint.
If you administer computers for your company, change the default filetypes in MS Office to open ones. Most users won't even notice. Even fewer will complain. Those who absolutely HAVE to use *.doc can go ahead. But they'll be only a small percentage of your users.
I don't have authority to mandate that all of my group members use OpenOffice.org. But I do what I can here and there to further the cause and to prevent us from being locked into a proprietary prison.
(That was a joke.)
That's why we have patent laws.
Interesting attitude. You need to read up on the history of copyright. It was originally intended "to promote the progress of science and useful arts." This is something that very few people understand, even many lawyers. The interpretation of copyright law has evolved into basically what you're describing, but that was not the original intent.
Remember the fall of TurboLinux? This could turn into a chain reaction.
This is the very best way to dispose of an old computer.
"Of course record companies want to embrace the technology for greater profits. That's what they've done before, and that's what they want to do again. How to do it isn't so clear or easy, however...[Later]...record companies have been working very hard at getting music on the Internet legally. That happens to be difficult - because you need the permission of the songwriters and music publishers, and in many cases the artists as well, and those clearances aren't easy to get. (Everyone is nervous about piracy, and trying to figure out how much revenue they should earn, and what the business model is going to be, etc.) And then there are the technical infrastructures that have to be built to account for downloads and streams and pay royalties to rightsowners; the security for the content; and so on. It's a lot easier to do it illegally (just post it, don't worry about security, and don't pay anybody anything); doing it legally takes time...[Later]...The technology in this area keeps changing, and improving. You mention Enhanced CDs. As it happens, lots of consumers have had trouble with Enhanced CDs, because they may not play on all devices. So every time you mess with computer technology, there are unexpected effects."
This WMP DRM business is a good example of what he was talking about. They have a difficult work to do if they want to embrace DRM and customers at the same time. Problems like this are unfortunate and (I believe) unacceptable, but are a natural consequence of what they're trying to do. I'd rather the music industry collapse from within, personally, but I'm not sure if that will happen.
Genes do a number of things. Most genes that we understand fairly well function for coding proteins - the macromolecular machines that do almost everything in the cell (determine, maintain, and change structure of the cell; catalyse chemical reactions; regulate processes; etc...). Genes that do this are _relatively_ easy to understand, as we can usually observe where the protein is and what it interacts with. Quite a few genes serve as regulators for the transcription of protein-encoding genes. For each protein-encoding gene, there may be a dozen or more regulator genes. These regulators can have either a positive or negative effect on the transcription, so the rate at which the protein-coding gene is transcribed depends on the sum of the influences of the regulators (which themselves are also regulated). The vast mojority of mammalian genes that have been identified have unknown functions. The gene described here could be protein-encoding. It could be a regulator. It could be a developmental gene that starts a cascade of regulators during fetal development.
A genome is not analogous to a blueprint, as is comonly thought. That's actually quite a poor analogy. A better analogy is that individual genes are like congressman in the House of Representatives. They bicker and fight sometimes and work together other times. It is mainly the sum of their actions that we observe, not the idivudual debates and compromises. We can only conjecture about those.
"Yes, I do believe that most people are honest and would pay a reasonable amount for convenience and quality. What I also believe is that it doesn't take much for people to justify not paying. If it's a major artist, they say "they're already rich enough." If it's an unknown artist, they say "I'm doing her a favor by promoting her work." But in the end, convenience will count for a lot; and security will count for even more (only now are the security flaws in P2P systems becoming known, not to mention the privacy risks). So I'm optimistic about the prospects for legitimate businesses online."
He makes some good points here. His justifications for not purchasing music are right on. I've encountered those very opinions here on
"...record companies have been working very hard at getting music on the Internet legally. That happens to be difficult - because you need the permission of the songwriters and music publishers, and in many cases the artists as well, and those clearances aren't easy to get. (Everyone is nervous about piracy, and trying to figure out how much revenue they should earn, and what the business model is going to be, etc.) And then there are the technical infrastructures that have to be built to account for downloads and streams and pay royalties to rightsowners; the security for the content; and so on. It's a lot easier to do it illegally (just post it, don't worry about security, and don't pay anybody anything); doing it legally takes time. But the companies are getting there. There are a lot of subscription services that are up and running with lots of content; more companies are allowing more downloading, and burning; there's a lot of experimentation on pricing. In other words, a real market is emerging!"
He's got a point. They're trying to fit their old 70's marketing stragegy into the new market of cyberspace. That's no easy task! It's like trying to fit a Ford V8 into a 17th century horse cart.
I found an interesting tidbit about the origin of the name "Godzilla." It seems to be a combination of two Japanese words translated awkwardly to English (like trying to read an Excel 97 spreadsheet in Excel 2000).
Here's my wish-list: I've been searching for a multitrack recorder for Linux but I haven't been satisfied with anything I've tried. I have experience with Win32 applications ranging from the high-end (Samplitude) to the lower (n-Track Studio). These were all easy to install and use. But I've run into lots of problems with various Linux applications (GLAME, SLab, and Multitrack). I'm a newbie, so maybe I just have no idea how to install and configure correctly. But if that's the case, then why don't we develop something easier to install and configure? Most musicians aren't software enginers (I'm not). Make it easy for us!
Am I not looking hard enough or is there really nothing out there for multitrack recording on GNU/Linux? Should I wait for OpenBeOS? Any suggestions will be appreciated.
I agree with you intellectually, but I don't feel it emotionally yet. I guess I've just been trained in the proprietary way. Most people have. It's difficult to see the doctrine of inherent ownership as mere propaganda from the content industry if you've been taught all your life that it is the unquestionable truth.
It also requires a big cultural change. These ideas are not shared by the masses. To disbelieve in inherent ownership is a radical view. That doesn't mean it's wrong, it's just unpopular. Intentionally espousing an unpopular view usually makes for bad karma in the world at large (something that we should understand here at /.).
I want to be certain about the ideas I endorse. Most people don't want to have to make a fundamental change of their world view and become radicals until they are convinced that the idea is 100% good. That's why education is so important. Proprietary's grip on my philosophy is weakening. We need to educate more people.
I was speaking with a friend of mine recently about his law practice. Because of my interest in the free software movement, I asked him if he ever works in copyright law. He does quite a bit. I asked him to explain the original intent of copyright law. He said that it was to protect inventors and authors from having their work stolen from them - to secure to them the rights to receive the benefits of their ideas. He didn't mention anything about "the progress of science and useful arts."
I told him my reason for asking about copyright and explained the basics of the GNU GPL. It turns out that he's one of the regional lawyers for Microsoft. It was counter-intuitive to him that people would contribute to a product as a peer-production effort without receiving a direct monetary reward. His impression of the open source community was that they are a bunch of hooligan pirates who don't want to pay for anything and will steal intellectual property rather than pay for it.
This was rather shocking to me because I'm not a pirate. I don't have any illegally-obtained recordings, movies, or software. I don't share my copies with those who ask. I view open source as a superior development model, not as a malicious piracy scheme.
What I learned from this experience is that we need to do more educating of people. We need to teach people that the free software movement has noble intentions. We have an entirely different business model and product development procedure. We don't do business the same way Microsoft does. That's offputting to people who can imagine nothing but proprietary ownership.
This post is long, but I'd like to make one more point: Why does fundamental ownership of a creation have to be a problem? I think a programmer who puts his sweat and tears into code has a fundamental right to he benefits of his work. I feel personally attached to songs that I record. Copyleft is about using that fundamental right of ownership to set the creation free and to allow others freedom to use it. In order to be able to set something free, you must first own that something.
If I understood you correctly, these were some of the ideas you had. These two books are worth a read if you'd like to see what's been done before.
I have killer pipes at my university - which is where I spend all of my time anyway. So I decided to disconnect my home computer from the internet to save a few dollars a month (and frustration from my 56K modem;). But I often create small files at home that I need to upload to my web page - like image files and low resolution oggs and such. A 1.44 MB floppy is great for these applications. It's irksome to burn a CD when the file is small enough to put it on a floppy or two.
Armed with my new ideas about "free as in free speech" I decided to write a manifesto for Free Music. I shared an early draft of it with my brother and suggested to him that we release our recordings on a free music license. He did not like the idea at all, and was disturbed by the manifesto.
I went back to my computer, opened up the document in OpenOffice and read through it again. I realised that the arguments I had adapted from GNU were just too extreme to be embraced by the uninformed public, especially by the artist community. I wanted my manifesto to be persuasive to the average musician, not just to those who happen to have read all of the philosophy section of the GNU website. I think a more effective way to "evangelize" open source projects is to emphasize the superiority of the development model for human creativity projects.
So now I'm not sure what to think of RMS. His views are extreme, and they don't sell very well to the average person. But extremeism is needed, so let him do all that he can to further the cause.