At first Microsoft said OpenGL was for CAD and other Pro stuff, and DirectX was for games. Microsoft supported OpenGL under these conditions.
But then there was this game called Quake, and there was this patch that was written that would run the game on accelerated hardware using OpenGL. Suddenly OpenGL became a viable API for games. In addition people wondered why DirectX was even necessary. OpenGL worked well and was much easier to code.
This was when things got pretty nasty. Microsoft promoted DirectX, pulled support for OpenGL, and turned the FUD machine way up. (To their credit, they also improved DirectX). We probably have John Carmack alone to thank for the continued support the OpenGL API receives for gaming.
Yes, that's somewhat true. However, I'd gamble that DVD (and hence DVD burning) will be around for sometime. As far as audio compression I don't think most people will care about new technologies. (In fact, if the music is stored in an internal hard drive, you might not even know what the format is). All that matters is that it works good enough. Audiophiles will disagree, but they wouldn't want compressed music anyway.
You make a very good point with the fact that the writing speed of the drives keeps increasing. (Hard disk space is a similar issue). Two things to think about here. One is that once the speed is fast enough upgrades won't matter much. (Why should I care if I can burn a movie in 3 minutes vs. 5)? We're not there yet, but we may be soon. (Perhaps this is really your point. At this point things are too volatile, best to wait for the technologies to mature a bit. I think DVD playing is mature. DVD writing certainly has some time to go). Option two, you could have a slightly more expensive version with a swappable or external drive.
Or taken a step further you could even make the whole thing a component system like your stereo. Instead of a reciever you have a computer that does most of the processing and all the A/D conversions. Separate and external to this (and each other) are the hard drives and DVD writer/player. For those on a budget all-in-one systems will be cheaper, but not upgradable. (Just like all-in-one stereos).
(A big unknown is how movies on demand will fit into this. It could be the killer-app or just the killer).
At first I thought that combining a console game system and a PVR was a great idea. (That was probably because I've toyed with the idea of putting together a computer to do just that). Then I realized that what you just said is true and it doesn't make commercial sense. I suspect most home entertainment equipment (TV/VCR's/stereo) gets replaced every 5-10 years. Game systems typically are replaced every 3-5 years.
However what might work is a sort of home box that's does everything but play games. (Actually, it'll play games, too, but they won't be state of the art nor will they be the primary reason for buying the box. Kind of like PC games pre-DOOM). The box will let you record/play like a PVR, it'll play DVD's, it'll write DVD's, it'll do movies on demand, it'll do all the MP3 library stuff for music. You can also use it to organize your photo's, movies, etc, and make home movies, too.
This is what I believe the real successful product will be - a media computer that sits in the room that you actually watch media in. (And unfortunately, it will be closed, proprietary and it'll have some DRM built into it).
>I guess it's the difference between the casual fans (the majority of the ones posting to this thread) and the diehards.
Ah, there's the rub. The casual fans are the ones that affect record sales the most (which is what we are discussing). For one thing, there aren't as many diehard fans, and for another, as long as an album is half decent the diehards are going to buy it anyway. The casual fans are the ones you need to appeal to if you want a big selling album.
Now, I admittingly am a casual fan. I didn't delve too deep into Pearl Jams albums after Ten. But judging from the music I heard (mostly on the radio) the albums after Ten were lame. Ten rocked; everything I heard afterward was boring. Perhaps I missed something in the following albums because I only looked at them casually. However, as far as sales goes, it doesn't matter. To me, and I suspect most casual listeners, Ten was far and away the best Pearl Jam album.
I have also thought something like this would be a good idea. Hopefully it would provide an alternative to radio that gets around the rediculous webcasting rates. Instead of broadcasting a playlist, however, I would just have the software in each computer decide what gets played next. (For your technique you're relying on every user having an extraordinarily large music collection). Sometimes the software will play music from the computer and sometimes the software will play music that has been downloaded from a P2P network. The P2P network consists of other people running the software. To avoid legal problems the software will only grab music from the P2P network that we have permission to play. I have other ideas to enhance this, but that's the general idea.
Really, what I am trying to provide is a way to expose people to new music from independents who will allow free distribution. However, software that only plays new unfamiliar music will turn most people off. Radio is successful at promoting new music because it combines the new with the familiar. Thanks to the RIAA, we can't distribute the familiar on webradio any more. However, if the familiar exists on the user's hard drive already, perhaps we can get around this.
Anyone interest in doing this? Go ahead, take my idea and run with it. Just send me a check if you become rich. (Or at least a "thank you for the idea").
The difference between traces (dense lines) and dense dots is probably not significant for this technology. However, one related issue with imprint technology that's not been discussed here is the impact of pattern density.
Compare a big non patterned area, dense lines, and a big opening. When I do the imprinting, the material that gets pushed out of the way has to go somewhere. For the non-patterned area, none of the material moves. For the dense lines I have to move about half the material. For the big opening, I have to move all of the material. This last one is a big challenge, especially when you have all types of features in the same mask. CMP like fill patterning (putting dummy features in to even out pattern density) can probably help here, but large open areas are always going to be problematic.
You are correct; photo's chemical usage is fairly benign (especially when compared to the other chemicals you mention). Photoresists are polymers in a solution of an organic solvent such as PGMEA or ethyl lactate. (I wouldn't want to drink these, bath in these, or breath heavily the fumes from these substances, but they are probably no worse than some of the glues or cleansers in your house). The developers for 248 nm lithography are mild base solutions of TMAH. This is fairly safe stuff that is easy to dispose. (I am not as familar with longer wavelength resists).
I've often felt the idea of putting the responsibility on the users to pick obscure passwords is a bad idea. As others have pointed out, this leads to all kinds of problems, (especially when the users have to change their passwords every month or two on many different systems).
If the problems occur because of software which cracks passwords, why not make the systems more secure against the methods used by such software? One obvious method is not allowing multiple log in attempts in quick succession. Many systems only allow 3 attempts at a log in before you have to wait 5 minutes to try again. To me this would make software that takes the shotgun approach to cracking passwords fairly useless. (And it would still allow users to pick obvious passwords like "shoe").
Am I missing something here? (I am not trying to be facetious, I am seriously interested in why this approach isn't used more often).
I strongly agree with the second half of what you said, but I disagree with the first half. The reality is attacking civilians has historically been done all the time by true armys. What would you call all the firebombing and the atom bomb during WWII? However, the label terrorism is generally only used when the attack is not done by a state run military.
The real distinction of terrorism is there is no way to defend against it. How are you going to attack back? If you are attacked by a true military orgainization, you can attack the country in charge of that military. When the attack is done by an terrorist organization the only thing you can do is consider the perpetrators of the attack as criminals. In the case of suicide bombers, the perpetrator is already dead. Perhaps you go after the people that sponsored them? This can be nearly impossible to do if the terrorists are being harbored. Every time Israel tries to get to the terrorists, the entire world gets in an uproar about the damage that gets inflicted on those people harboring the criminals (and some innocents caught in the cross-fire).
Furthermore, with a terrorist organization it's nearly to impossible to negotiate an end to the conflict. When negotiating with a country you know who to negotiate with. Who is Israel supposed to negotiate with? Arafat? Hamas? One of the several other terrorist orgainizations attacking them? Arafat is probably the best choice at the moment, but there are certainly doubts. At best, he is unable to control the Palestinians, to keep peace. At worst, he is a liar who has no interest in peace. (I suppose the last statement might be true even if he was the leader of a true country).
Just for the record, having spouted all this pro-Israel rhetoric, I also beleive the Palestinians have some justice for their outrage. They have been treated like shit for a long time, (and hardly just by Israel). They really should have their own country. (However, I don't think they should fully have their own military - kind of like Japan). Unfortunately, this would probably solve few of their problems, but at least they wouldn't have Israel to blame.
>Devil's Advocate: If cars became cheaper to make, but they lasted longer and performed better, should they be cheaper than their predecessors, or should you pay more for quality?
At first, you probably would pay more. However, in a competetive market, eventually someone is going to step in and charge less, bringing prices down.
In the long term I don't think manufacturing improvements help the profits of the company. All the savings need to be passed on to the customers in order to remain price competetive. It's do or die for the company, so they still need to make those improvements. Economics (in theory) will set the price at the lowest point were companies can remain profitable.
Or, was your question philosophical? In that case, I think the competive model still has the right answer. Paying more at first for something of better quality (even if cheaper to make) is not unreasonable. But, the price should come down eventually to reflect the cost of manufacturing.
Google probably has no choice. They were served with a notice, and the way the laws are written they did what they probably had to do. The only other option for Google is to fight it. Given how successful Scientology's lawyers were with Keith Henson, I'm not sure Google would win.
The difference between this and the other violations is that Google (to my knowledge) hasn't been served with a notice about all the DeCSS sites, etc. However, this does set a very dangerous precident. Everyone who wants something censored could threaten Google. If that happens, Google may have to fight it at some point.
It seems that this "Bill of Rights" doesn't include anything which isn't already covered by "fair-use" doctrine. This isn't a bad thing. Indeed, in the current climate we need to remind our lawmakers that they shouldn't be giving the media producers the ability to walk all over our fair use rights.
I'm not opposed to the media producers trying to copy protect their content. I'm not even necessarily opposed to legislation that might help them do it. (such as a modified DMCA- the SSSCA on the other hand is pure nonsense). However, I am opposed to the fact that they've been able to tie copy protection in with fair-use steeling mechanisms, effectively killing the ability to exercise fair-use.
Strangely enough, if our legal system worked the way it is supposed to, we wouldn't need to fight to keep fair use alive. Hopefully this example will explain why I say this...
If I currently wanted to sell a way to rip DVD's I could claim my product has fair use reasons for existing. (such as back-ups and platform shifting). If the media producers gave us the ability exercise as much fair use as possible while maintaining copy protection, there would go my defense. The media producers would be left with a choice. If they give consumers their rights, the law will protect their copy protection. If they stomp all over fair use, they're on their own.
However, in the current climate, copy protection trumps fair use. The media producers get to win it all. So, perhaps we do need this "Bill of Rights"
My solution to this problem (and to the similar problem in the music industry) would be to outlaw multi-year, multi-book, multi-album, or anything in a contract that has to do with long term future work from anything that's not a company. Any contract should only represent a specific body of work either already created or to be created within the very near future (perhaps a one year limit). Just like anyone else, authors need to be able to find better positions if their current employer is screwing them.
The truth is on your first contract you are going to get screwed. You have very little experience or bargaining power. That's just the way it's going to be. However, after you've proved yourself to be valuable, you should be able to negotiate a much better deal for your next work.
There may be illegal reasons why this may not work. (The cartels may simply agree not to offer better contracts even to their competition's valuable authors or artists). However, this would be a great step in the right direction.
I think the point is that licenses aren't necessarily black and white. A manufacturer can't simply make up a license that is too restrictive and say "tough, we put in our license you have to play by our rules." So, the judge and Sony's lawyers found a weasily way of justifying a victory for Sony without dealing with the thorny issue of whether such restrictive licenses are ligitimate. It seems like total BS to me.
In fact, I'd say an aweful lot of the trouble I have with these issues (DMCA, CSS, SMDI) is the fact that companies are trying to come up with arbitrary licenses and enforcing them through technology. We really need to turn the discussion away from what is technologically permitted, and turn in into a discussion about what rights the consumer has. Then if manufacturers want the law to enforce their rights, they shouldn't use technology to take away the rights of the consumers. OK, it's a dream, but I think it's the right direction.
I agree, a balance needs to be found. What I don't like is that entertainment industry is not merely trying to prevent the widespread unauthorized distribution of it's product. They are also trying to create controls that go beyond what is necessary to achieve protection. (Some of these controls are only necessary to make possible new "business models"). Macrovision and region encoded are some examples, and the sorts of things mentioned in the CNet article go beyond that.
I do believe the industry should be allowed to protect their product from being too easily digitally copied. Yes, this might even mean such horrible things as preventing distribution of "DeCSS" (in an easy to use form). But in exchange for having the force of the law behind their protection measures, they should not be allowed to role in "extra" features in the protection. So, in other words they shouldn't prevent analogue copies from being made. They shouldn't tell me I can only view something once. The issue of digital copies for back-ups or taking to a friends house is a little touchier, but I believe some reasonable compromises can be made here. Sure, some of their business ideas may not work with the above limitations, but tough. It is reasonable for the industry to want to profit from their work. It is not reasonable that we make every idea for extracting profit that they have possible.
Could be, but I think the market will keep business PC's similar to what they are today. (Also, when I say business PC's I don't mean they won't be found in the home. Maybe I should make the distinction of work vs. fun PC). What will change is that you won't be able be able download movies and music onto the work PC's because the content producers will do their best to make it so. That will be the sole dominion of the "HomeBox" or whatever they call it.
I agree with you halfway. (I just wrote this above, but I'll repeat it here). What I really think Microsoft will do is divide the PC market into 2 segments: The business and home PC. The business PC will continue to exist as it does today. The home PC will be closed with all the sorts of controls you listed. The content creators will then only distribute content in an encrypted form that can be used by the closed system.
What is more likely is that Microsoft is trying to divide the pie into two segments and PC types: business and home. The business type will continue to be an open system with the ability to inexpensively develop software and add hardware from anyone. The home type will be a closed system and be designed to play games, handle entertainment and other media, and surf the internet. Because it is a closed system, this home PC can have some sort of content protection. The media producers need this before they'll support any PC media scheme. (Also, a closed system can be made more stable).
I don't think it's a coincidence that 3Dfx's first real 2D/3D product, the Banshee, was the beginning of the dethroning of 3Dfx.
The true genius of the Voodoo cards was not that they were able to make the card (not to belittle the engineering of the card), but it is that they thought to try. No one else recognized that there was a market for a nearly $300 card for 3D games. It seems the industry was caught totally off guard and was forced to play catch-up.
The people behind the Voodoo also knew exactly what to put in (640x480 at >30 fps), and exactly what to leave out (2D). By leaving out the 2D, they were able to get the part to market very quickly.
To continue to succeed, 3Dfx recognized they were going to need a 2D/3D part. As the Voodoo Rush demonstrated slapping someone else's 2D on their 3D was not a good solution. Unfortunately, while 3Dfx was probably spending considerable effort to develop their 2D part, everyone else had the chance to catch-up on the 3D.
With the release of the TNT, the playing field was relatively level and remained so until 3Dfx missed a product cycle. Because the TNT was made a couple years after the original Voodoo, it made sense to include features (such as 32 bit rendering) that would of made no sense on the original Voodoo. So at this point, Nvidia could offer these advanced rendering features, and the Voodoo series offered better compatibility. Both approaches make sense. (I bought the TNT2 instead of a Voodoo 3, but if I had to do it again I'd buy the Voodoo 3).
I also think 3Dfx made some mistakes in terms of marketing and business plans, but none of this would of mattered if they remained the technology leader. I also think credit needs to be given to Nvidia and their extremely aggressive engineering. It's astonishing how quickly they turned into a 3D leader, and also how quickly they put out new products.
Slashdot Mirror
At first Microsoft said OpenGL was for CAD and other Pro stuff, and DirectX was for games. Microsoft supported OpenGL under these conditions.
But then there was this game called Quake, and there was this patch that was written that would run the game on accelerated hardware using OpenGL. Suddenly OpenGL became a viable API for games. In addition people wondered why DirectX was even necessary. OpenGL worked well and was much easier to code.
This was when things got pretty nasty. Microsoft promoted DirectX, pulled support for OpenGL, and turned the FUD machine way up. (To their credit, they also improved DirectX). We probably have John Carmack alone to thank for the continued support the OpenGL API receives for gaming.
Yes, that's somewhat true. However, I'd gamble that DVD (and hence DVD burning) will be around for sometime. As far as audio compression I don't think most people will care about new technologies. (In fact, if the music is stored in an internal hard drive, you might not even know what the format is). All that matters is that it works good enough. Audiophiles will disagree, but they wouldn't want compressed music anyway.
You make a very good point with the fact that the writing speed of the drives keeps increasing. (Hard disk space is a similar issue). Two things to think about here. One is that once the speed is fast enough upgrades won't matter much. (Why should I care if I can burn a movie in 3 minutes vs. 5)? We're not there yet, but we may be soon. (Perhaps this is really your point. At this point things are too volatile, best to wait for the technologies to mature a bit. I think DVD playing is mature. DVD writing certainly has some time to go). Option two, you could have a slightly more expensive version with a swappable or external drive.
Or taken a step further you could even make the whole thing a component system like your stereo. Instead of a reciever you have a computer that does most of the processing and all the A/D conversions. Separate and external to this (and each other) are the hard drives and DVD writer/player. For those on a budget all-in-one systems will be cheaper, but not upgradable. (Just like all-in-one stereos).
(A big unknown is how movies on demand will fit into this. It could be the killer-app or just the killer).
At first I thought that combining a console game system and a PVR was a great idea. (That was probably because I've toyed with the idea of putting together a computer to do just that). Then I realized that what you just said is true and it doesn't make commercial sense. I suspect most home entertainment equipment (TV/VCR's/stereo) gets replaced every 5-10 years. Game systems typically are replaced every 3-5 years.
However what might work is a sort of home box that's does everything but play games. (Actually, it'll play games, too, but they won't be state of the art nor will they be the primary reason for buying the box. Kind of like PC games pre-DOOM). The box will let you record/play like a PVR, it'll play DVD's, it'll write DVD's, it'll do movies on demand, it'll do all the MP3 library stuff for music. You can also use it to organize your photo's, movies, etc, and make home movies, too.
This is what I believe the real successful product will be - a media computer that sits in the room that you actually watch media in. (And unfortunately, it will be closed, proprietary and it'll have some DRM built into it).
>I guess it's the difference between the casual fans (the majority of the ones posting to this thread) and the diehards.
Ah, there's the rub. The casual fans are the ones that affect record sales the most (which is what we are discussing). For one thing, there aren't as many diehard fans, and for another, as long as an album is half decent the diehards are going to buy it anyway. The casual fans are the ones you need to appeal to if you want a big selling album.
Now, I admittingly am a casual fan. I didn't delve too deep into Pearl Jams albums after Ten. But judging from the music I heard (mostly on the radio) the albums after Ten were lame. Ten rocked; everything I heard afterward was boring. Perhaps I missed something in the following albums because I only looked at them casually. However, as far as sales goes, it doesn't matter. To me, and I suspect most casual listeners, Ten was far and away the best Pearl Jam album.
I have also thought something like this would be a good idea. Hopefully it would provide an alternative to radio that gets around the rediculous webcasting rates. Instead of broadcasting a playlist, however, I would just have the software in each computer decide what gets played next. (For your technique you're relying on every user having an extraordinarily large music collection). Sometimes the software will play music from the computer and sometimes the software will play music that has been downloaded from a P2P network. The P2P network consists of other people running the software. To avoid legal problems the software will only grab music from the P2P network that we have permission to play. I have other ideas to enhance this, but that's the general idea.
Really, what I am trying to provide is a way to expose people to new music from independents who will allow free distribution. However, software that only plays new unfamiliar music will turn most people off. Radio is successful at promoting new music because it combines the new with the familiar. Thanks to the RIAA, we can't distribute the familiar on webradio any more. However, if the familiar exists on the user's hard drive already, perhaps we can get around this.
Anyone interest in doing this? Go ahead, take my idea and run with it. Just send me a check if you become rich. (Or at least a "thank you for the idea").
The difference between traces (dense lines) and dense dots is probably not significant for this technology. However, one related issue with imprint technology that's not been discussed here is the impact of pattern density.
Compare a big non patterned area, dense lines, and a big opening. When I do the imprinting, the material that gets pushed out of the way has to go somewhere. For the non-patterned area, none of the material moves. For the dense lines I have to move about half the material. For the big opening, I have to move all of the material. This last one is a big challenge, especially when you have all types of features in the same mask. CMP like fill patterning (putting dummy features in to even out pattern density) can probably help here, but large open areas are always going to be problematic.
You are correct; photo's chemical usage is fairly benign (especially when compared to the other chemicals you mention). Photoresists are polymers in a solution of an organic solvent such as PGMEA or ethyl lactate. (I wouldn't want to drink these, bath in these, or breath heavily the fumes from these substances, but they are probably no worse than some of the glues or cleansers in your house). The developers for 248 nm lithography are mild base solutions of TMAH. This is fairly safe stuff that is easy to dispose. (I am not as familar with longer wavelength resists).
I've often felt the idea of putting the responsibility on the users to pick obscure passwords is a bad idea. As others have pointed out, this leads to all kinds of problems, (especially when the users have to change their passwords every month or two on many different systems).
If the problems occur because of software which cracks passwords, why not make the systems more secure against the methods used by such software? One obvious method is not allowing multiple log in attempts in quick succession. Many systems only allow 3 attempts at a log in before you have to wait 5 minutes to try again. To me this would make software that takes the shotgun approach to cracking passwords fairly useless. (And it would still allow users to pick obvious passwords like "shoe").
Am I missing something here? (I am not trying to be facetious, I am seriously interested in why this approach isn't used more often).
I strongly agree with the second half of what you said, but I disagree with the first half. The reality is attacking civilians has historically been done all the time by true armys. What would you call all the firebombing and the atom bomb during WWII? However, the label terrorism is generally only used when the attack is not done by a state run military.
The real distinction of terrorism is there is no way to defend against it. How are you going to attack back? If you are attacked by a true military orgainization, you can attack the country in charge of that military. When the attack is done by an terrorist organization the only thing you can do is consider the perpetrators of the attack as criminals. In the case of suicide bombers, the perpetrator is already dead. Perhaps you go after the people that sponsored them? This can be nearly impossible to do if the terrorists are being harbored. Every time Israel tries to get to the terrorists, the entire world gets in an uproar about the damage that gets inflicted on those people harboring the criminals (and some innocents caught in the cross-fire).
Furthermore, with a terrorist organization it's nearly to impossible to negotiate an end to the conflict. When negotiating with a country you know who to negotiate with. Who is Israel supposed to negotiate with? Arafat? Hamas? One of the several other terrorist orgainizations attacking them? Arafat is probably the best choice at the moment, but there are certainly doubts. At best, he is unable to control the Palestinians, to keep peace. At worst, he is a liar who has no interest in peace. (I suppose the last statement might be true even if he was the leader of a true country).
Just for the record, having spouted all this pro-Israel rhetoric, I also beleive the Palestinians have some justice for their outrage. They have been treated like shit for a long time, (and hardly just by Israel). They really should have their own country. (However, I don't think they should fully have their own military - kind of like Japan). Unfortunately, this would probably solve few of their problems, but at least they wouldn't have Israel to blame.
>Devil's Advocate: If cars became cheaper to make, but they lasted longer and performed better, should they be cheaper than their predecessors, or should you pay more for quality?
At first, you probably would pay more. However, in a competetive market, eventually someone is going to step in and charge less, bringing prices down.
In the long term I don't think manufacturing improvements help the profits of the company. All the savings need to be passed on to the customers in order to remain price competetive. It's do or die for the company, so they still need to make those improvements. Economics (in theory) will set the price at the lowest point were companies can remain profitable.
Or, was your question philosophical? In that case, I think the competive model still has the right answer. Paying more at first for something of better quality (even if cheaper to make) is not unreasonable. But, the price should come down eventually to reflect the cost of manufacturing.
Google probably has no choice. They were served with a notice, and the way the laws are written they did what they probably had to do. The only other option for Google is to fight it. Given how successful Scientology's lawyers were with Keith Henson, I'm not sure Google would win.
The difference between this and the other violations is that Google (to my knowledge) hasn't been served with a notice about all the DeCSS sites, etc. However, this does set a very dangerous precident. Everyone who wants something censored could threaten Google. If that happens, Google may have to fight it at some point.
It seems that this "Bill of Rights" doesn't include anything which isn't already covered by "fair-use" doctrine. This isn't a bad thing. Indeed, in the current climate we need to remind our lawmakers that they shouldn't be giving the media producers the ability to walk all over our fair use rights.
I'm not opposed to the media producers trying to copy protect their content. I'm not even necessarily opposed to legislation that might help them do it. (such as a modified DMCA- the SSSCA on the other hand is pure nonsense). However, I am opposed to the fact that they've been able to tie copy protection in with fair-use steeling mechanisms, effectively killing the ability to exercise fair-use.
Strangely enough, if our legal system worked the way it is supposed to, we wouldn't need to fight to keep fair use alive. Hopefully this example will explain why I say this...
If I currently wanted to sell a way to rip DVD's I could claim my product has fair use reasons for existing. (such as back-ups and platform shifting). If the media producers gave us the ability exercise as much fair use as possible while maintaining copy protection, there would go my defense. The media producers would be left with a choice. If they give consumers their rights, the law will protect their copy protection. If they stomp all over fair use, they're on their own.
However, in the current climate, copy protection trumps fair use. The media producers get to win it all. So, perhaps we do need this "Bill of Rights"
My solution to this problem (and to the similar problem in the music industry) would be to outlaw multi-year, multi-book, multi-album, or anything in a contract that has to do with long term future work from anything that's not a company. Any contract should only represent a specific body of work either already created or to be created within the very near future (perhaps a one year limit). Just like anyone else, authors need to be able to find better positions if their current employer is screwing them.
The truth is on your first contract you are going to get screwed. You have very little experience or bargaining power. That's just the way it's going to be. However, after you've proved yourself to be valuable, you should be able to negotiate a much better deal for your next work.
There may be illegal reasons why this may not work. (The cartels may simply agree not to offer better contracts even to their competition's valuable authors or artists). However, this would be a great step in the right direction.
I think the point is that licenses aren't necessarily black and white. A manufacturer can't simply make up a license that is too restrictive and say "tough, we put in our license you have to play by our rules." So, the judge and Sony's lawyers found a weasily way of justifying a victory for Sony without dealing with the thorny issue of whether such restrictive licenses are ligitimate. It seems like total BS to me.
In fact, I'd say an aweful lot of the trouble I have with these issues (DMCA, CSS, SMDI) is the fact that companies are trying to come up with arbitrary licenses and enforcing them through technology. We really need to turn the discussion away from what is technologically permitted, and turn in into a discussion about what rights the consumer has. Then if manufacturers want the law to enforce their rights, they shouldn't use technology to take away the rights of the consumers. OK, it's a dream, but I think it's the right direction.
I agree, a balance needs to be found. What I don't like is that entertainment industry is not merely trying to prevent the widespread unauthorized distribution of it's product. They are also trying to create controls that go beyond what is necessary to achieve protection. (Some of these controls are only necessary to make possible new "business models"). Macrovision and region encoded are some examples, and the sorts of things mentioned in the CNet article go beyond that.
I do believe the industry should be allowed to protect their product from being too easily digitally copied. Yes, this might even mean such horrible things as preventing distribution of "DeCSS" (in an easy to use form). But in exchange for having the force of the law behind their protection measures, they should not be allowed to role in "extra" features in the protection. So, in other words they shouldn't prevent analogue copies from being made. They shouldn't tell me I can only view something once. The issue of digital copies for back-ups or taking to a friends house is a little touchier, but I believe some reasonable compromises can be made here. Sure, some of their business ideas may not work with the above limitations, but tough. It is reasonable for the industry to want to profit from their work. It is not reasonable that we make every idea for extracting profit that they have possible.
Could be, but I think the market will keep business PC's similar to what they are today. (Also, when I say business PC's I don't mean they won't be found in the home. Maybe I should make the distinction of work vs. fun PC). What will change is that you won't be able be able download movies and music onto the work PC's because the content producers will do their best to make it so. That will be the sole dominion of the "HomeBox" or whatever they call it.
I agree with you halfway. (I just wrote this above, but I'll repeat it here). What I really think Microsoft will do is divide the PC market into 2 segments: The business and home PC. The business PC will continue to exist as it does today. The home PC will be closed with all the sorts of controls you listed. The content creators will then only distribute content in an encrypted form that can be used by the closed system.
What is more likely is that Microsoft is trying to divide the pie into two segments and PC types: business and home. The business type will continue to be an open system with the ability to inexpensively develop software and add hardware from anyone. The home type will be a closed system and be designed to play games, handle entertainment and other media, and surf the internet. Because it is a closed system, this home PC can have some sort of content protection. The media producers need this before they'll support any PC media scheme. (Also, a closed system can be made more stable).
I don't think it's a coincidence that 3Dfx's first real 2D/3D product, the Banshee, was the beginning of the dethroning of 3Dfx. The true genius of the Voodoo cards was not that they were able to make the card (not to belittle the engineering of the card), but it is that they thought to try. No one else recognized that there was a market for a nearly $300 card for 3D games. It seems the industry was caught totally off guard and was forced to play catch-up. The people behind the Voodoo also knew exactly what to put in (640x480 at >30 fps), and exactly what to leave out (2D). By leaving out the 2D, they were able to get the part to market very quickly. To continue to succeed, 3Dfx recognized they were going to need a 2D/3D part. As the Voodoo Rush demonstrated slapping someone else's 2D on their 3D was not a good solution. Unfortunately, while 3Dfx was probably spending considerable effort to develop their 2D part, everyone else had the chance to catch-up on the 3D. With the release of the TNT, the playing field was relatively level and remained so until 3Dfx missed a product cycle. Because the TNT was made a couple years after the original Voodoo, it made sense to include features (such as 32 bit rendering) that would of made no sense on the original Voodoo. So at this point, Nvidia could offer these advanced rendering features, and the Voodoo series offered better compatibility. Both approaches make sense. (I bought the TNT2 instead of a Voodoo 3, but if I had to do it again I'd buy the Voodoo 3). I also think 3Dfx made some mistakes in terms of marketing and business plans, but none of this would of mattered if they remained the technology leader. I also think credit needs to be given to Nvidia and their extremely aggressive engineering. It's astonishing how quickly they turned into a 3D leader, and also how quickly they put out new products.