The problem is that I don't agree with the initial reasoning on copyright. If technology advancement has gotten us to the point where replication is so cheap and easy, the civilization should reap the benefits of it.
Your analogy is invalid because cars can't be magically cloned at virtually zero cost. Information, of which music is a subset, can. See the wall of text I just posted above: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2979739&cid=40654603
If you can't get the public to pay the costs, then there's no market for you, period. Just because you have something to sell doesn't mean there's people who'll buy it. What you're doing when you release it before having been paid in full is basically give the public a credit, which in itself is kosher, but you run the risk of them not paying back the credit, and you can't really complain when they don't.
And no, they're not making available any song at all... What they're making available is bandwidth to copy the songs from their servers, nothing more. You pay $.99, they let you copy the song from their server. They never sell you the song itself - they give it away with the bandwidth you buy.
No, I'm not being silly. I'm being logical. Back when the vinyl disc was born, the companies that were involved in the development of that cutting-edge technology suddenly had this ability to make discs of vinyl which could contain recordings of sound to be played back in a different location. They were not music factories, they were VINYL factories. And if they wanted to recoup their investment in the development and gain a profit, they needed a way to sell VINYL in massive quantities, ie. to consumers.
So what did they do? They contracted musicians, put them to play in front of a recording lathe, and then used the music as an excuse to sell the VINYL to the people. At some point they struck this deal that, instead of paying the musicians up front for the recording sessions, they would pay them a certain amount for every disc of vinyl sold, and it turns out that these discs of vinyl that just happened to contain recordings of music in them proved very popular with the public, so a whole industry formed around this. But what they were selling all along was VINYL, not songs, not music, vinyl.
Now, since the practical limitations of technology back then meant these vinyl manufacturing companies effectively had a monopoly on the transportation of recorded music to consumers, everyone in their head made a false correlation (false because it's not causation) that vinyl sold = music sold. However as the tape era came about, this correlation started to fade everywhere but in the people's heads...
...enter the third millenium. Now we have technology that allows us to copy information - not just music - from one place to another. This technology is called Internet. But there's a twist: This thing called Internet, unlike the vinyl, did not start as a medium for transportation of sound. Not because of any limitation on the Internet itself, but because the nodes (computers) connected to the Internet did not have the capacity to store, transmit or play back audio signals, but basically only text. Thus, the fist applications of the Internet involved only textual communications. This means that the companies that established themselves as the owners of the Internet did not have any interest whatsoever in using music as an excuse to sell the Internet to consumers. But computer tech evolved, and the situation changed... Fast forward 20 years, and now every node conneded to the Internet pertains to a consumer, and is fully capable of acquiring, transmitting, storing, copying, and playing back music. It's not that the transportation manufacturer disappeared... It's still there. It's called Internet Service Provider. They're the guys you pay a monthly bill to in exchange for using their bandwidth to transmit information. However, as mentioned above, the difference between the disappearing vinyl (read: prerecorded CD) manufacturers and the Internet manufacturers is that the ISP guys don't have any specific interest in hiring musicians to use as an excuse to sell Internet to the consumers - the Internet sells itself for many other reasons!
So now that there's no one around to pay the musicians their royalities, what the musicians are doing is, in an attempt to stick to the old ways of the vinyl industry, trying to pay themselves their royalities by reselling something they don't
No, live performances aren't needed, making music for Internet distribution is just fine. My acoustically designed studio and high [record|mix|master]ing skills are still needed and my job is safe. And if they aren't because home recording and your skills have gotten good enough and I'm out of a job, that's fine. Not everyone can make a job out of an enthusiasm. I'll just go get a crappy job like everyone else - I can work anything that requires a ponytail and a goatee - and keep my studio an expensive hobby. (In reality I'd just dedicate full-time to audio algorithm design, which you would still pay for indirectly when you buy your gear)
If people want to get paid for their creations, then why do they bloody insist on giving it away for free on a $10 CD or $2 of Internet bandwidth?
Musicians just don't seem to be able to understand that they're not CD manufacturers, and they're not Internet Service Providers, they can't charge for CDs, and they can't charge for Internet copying. What they can charge for is only their music... which they're stupidly giving away. People is already being generous when they buy plastic or bandwidth from them (being able to buy it from cheaper stores) just so they get their cut and try to recover their creation costs, but that's the wrong way to go about it.
Artist, does it cost you $60,000 to make your work (include your own salary)?... Pro-tip: Sell it for $60,000, not for $0.99. If your work is really worth that, people will pay the cost. Set up a kickstarter and watch it happen. If your work isn't worth what it costs, then there's no market for you. Tough. But please stop all this lunacy, we need it to stop freaking yesterday.
-Sincerely, an audio engineer who understands what is wrong with the businesss
Comparing the wrong thing. GPL is not about lawfullness, GPL is about morals (it just happens to have a legal background, "because we can", or as I've read somewhere, "to turn copyright against itself and make it copyleft"). We think it's not moral to try to restrict the natural flow of information, which GPL promotes, and "proprietary copyright" forbids. Enough said. There are no inconsistencies in RMS's support of file sharing.
Surprisingly they're already being sold to mere mortals, but those are early models that are not mature enough to be used for video production (the Lytro is for consumers but can only take pictures, the Raytrix can take video but is for industrial applications).
In the meantime while these cameras mature, any way you can turn imagery into 3D models is fair game, maybe a wide-angle high resolution Kinect, or interpolation from two normal cameras (it's a bit more complex than interpolation but you get the idea), or mere image recognition a la gimmicky 2D-to-3D conversion, etc.
I didn't think anything of the time-varying, but maybe I'm just spoiled because in my field we convert from PCM to PDM and back, every day for breakfast, and once again for dinner, and the mindset of resolution--time equivalence sort of sticks with you.
No. The content itself is at a normal video frame rate, the extra frames are computed out of a map of the deltas between POVs at the displaying site.
Of course you still need to store that in the video somehow, but it's only the inevitable overhead of holographic vs. 2D, which isn't going to be anywhere near 1000 times bigger and is only going to get smaller as compression methods tailored to it are developed.
You know, you have a point regarding movies, I hadn't thought of that. However your point is invalid re:games. The only thing you achieve by flattening a game into 2D is that now you have to move your character to see occluded things, whereas the multiscopic 3D gives you the additional option of moving your head instead of your character, which can be a severe advantage when aiming (ie. you don't have to un-aim to look around).
Also, they are abusing the property of most real 3D scenes that not everything changes from one POV to another (ie. the middle of a diffuse-lit diffuse surface doesn't) to try to cram more POVs in less frames.
Except that instead of using microlenses to bend the rays, they are using the layered screens to produce virtually bent rays. The high FPS is because they can only produce one set of virtually bent rays for any one frame, so they need as many frames as they want points of view. IOW what integral displays need in extra pixels this display needs in extra frames.
To put it another way, this is to integral what parallax is to lenticular.
Actually this makes 3D not suck. This is not at all like the 3D you've seen in your "games, movies and books/comics", this really is more like the 3D you see in real life.
Wireless is inherently more prone to this type of attack because you can listen to it, and if you can listen to it you can try to crack the encryption. With wired connections (we're not only talking about networks here, wireless keyboards too for example) most of the time this is impossible, even if you can somehow get at the wire the chances that no one is going to notice are non-zero. With wireless they can be exactly zero.
In practice not everything that connects wirelessly uses encryption, not everything that uses encryption uses unbreakable encryption, not everything that uses breakable encryption can be retrofitted to use something better - especially if it's a standard - and not everything that uses unbreakable encryption has non-vulnerable users (ie. users ignoring SSL warnings caused by a MITM WiFi hotspot, which has been done, though I don't have the links on hand).
Actually, if you're going to go this far, maybe it's just easier to use a virtual reality headset.
Easier, yes, but the problem with VR headsets besides resolution and image size is that you can't use eye movement, only head. That gets tiresome soon and is somewhat clumsy.
The best is big curved screen, like IMAX dome, or the closest thing you can get to that. Multimonitor angled is the closest most people can get.
In retrospective it doesn't matter, either way theft - the usual criminal purpose of these tools - is more like hunting than it is like killing, and one party of a war spying on another is more like (and often leads to actual) killing, so at any rate the GGP's analogy is backwards.
I personally find the inventor's decision reasonable in this case, though I fear I'm far unqualified to tell wether it's indeed a good decision or not.
imagine the inventor of the firearm deciding to call it quits because someone found a way to hunt with it instead of kill people (in self defense even?).
Except in this case, unless I'm missing something (is the Syrian government considered better or worse than the activists?), it's the other way around.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that I don't agree with the initial reasoning on copyright. If technology advancement has gotten us to the point where replication is so cheap and easy, the civilization should reap the benefits of it.
Your analogy is invalid because cars can't be magically cloned at virtually zero cost. Information, of which music is a subset, can. See the wall of text I just posted above: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2979739&cid=40654603
If you can't get the public to pay the costs, then there's no market for you, period. Just because you have something to sell doesn't mean there's people who'll buy it. What you're doing when you release it before having been paid in full is basically give the public a credit, which in itself is kosher, but you run the risk of them not paying back the credit, and you can't really complain when they don't.
And no, they're not making available any song at all... What they're making available is bandwidth to copy the songs from their servers, nothing more. You pay $.99, they let you copy the song from their server. They never sell you the song itself - they give it away with the bandwidth you buy.
No, I'm not being silly. I'm being logical. Back when the vinyl disc was born, the companies that were involved in the development of that cutting-edge technology suddenly had this ability to make discs of vinyl which could contain recordings of sound to be played back in a different location. They were not music factories, they were VINYL factories. And if they wanted to recoup their investment in the development and gain a profit, they needed a way to sell VINYL in massive quantities, ie. to consumers.
So what did they do? They contracted musicians, put them to play in front of a recording lathe, and then used the music as an excuse to sell the VINYL to the people. At some point they struck this deal that, instead of paying the musicians up front for the recording sessions, they would pay them a certain amount for every disc of vinyl sold, and it turns out that these discs of vinyl that just happened to contain recordings of music in them proved very popular with the public, so a whole industry formed around this. But what they were selling all along was VINYL, not songs, not music, vinyl.
Now, since the practical limitations of technology back then meant these vinyl manufacturing companies effectively had a monopoly on the transportation of recorded music to consumers, everyone in their head made a false correlation (false because it's not causation) that vinyl sold = music sold. However as the tape era came about, this correlation started to fade everywhere but in the people's heads...
...enter the third millenium. Now we have technology that allows us to copy information - not just music - from one place to another. This technology is called Internet. But there's a twist: This thing called Internet, unlike the vinyl, did not start as a medium for transportation of sound. Not because of any limitation on the Internet itself, but because the nodes (computers) connected to the Internet did not have the capacity to store, transmit or play back audio signals, but basically only text. Thus, the fist applications of the Internet involved only textual communications. This means that the companies that established themselves as the owners of the Internet did not have any interest whatsoever in using music as an excuse to sell the Internet to consumers. But computer tech evolved, and the situation changed... Fast forward 20 years, and now every node conneded to the Internet pertains to a consumer, and is fully capable of acquiring, transmitting, storing, copying, and playing back music. It's not that the transportation manufacturer disappeared... It's still there. It's called Internet Service Provider. They're the guys you pay a monthly bill to in exchange for using their bandwidth to transmit information. However, as mentioned above, the difference between the disappearing vinyl (read: prerecorded CD) manufacturers and the Internet manufacturers is that the ISP guys don't have any specific interest in hiring musicians to use as an excuse to sell Internet to the consumers - the Internet sells itself for many other reasons!
So now that there's no one around to pay the musicians their royalities, what the musicians are doing is, in an attempt to stick to the old ways of the vinyl industry, trying to pay themselves their royalities by reselling something they don't
As a sound engineer, let me refer you to my answer given here: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2979739&cid=40651157
No, live performances aren't needed, making music for Internet distribution is just fine. My acoustically designed studio and high [record|mix|master]ing skills are still needed and my job is safe. And if they aren't because home recording and your skills have gotten good enough and I'm out of a job, that's fine. Not everyone can make a job out of an enthusiasm. I'll just go get a crappy job like everyone else - I can work anything that requires a ponytail and a goatee - and keep my studio an expensive hobby. (In reality I'd just dedicate full-time to audio algorithm design, which you would still pay for indirectly when you buy your gear)
Wrong. Did you even read my freaking post? I'd be getting my cut of those $60,000 acquired through crowdfunding.
I'm not RMS (thankfully, my hygiene is a little better) but I refer you to my answer given here: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2979739&cid=40651157
If people want to get paid for their creations, then why do they bloody insist on giving it away for free on a $10 CD or $2 of Internet bandwidth?
Musicians just don't seem to be able to understand that they're not CD manufacturers, and they're not Internet Service Providers, they can't charge for CDs, and they can't charge for Internet copying. What they can charge for is only their music... which they're stupidly giving away. People is already being generous when they buy plastic or bandwidth from them (being able to buy it from cheaper stores) just so they get their cut and try to recover their creation costs, but that's the wrong way to go about it.
Artist, does it cost you $60,000 to make your work (include your own salary)?... Pro-tip: Sell it for $60,000, not for $0.99. If your work is really worth that, people will pay the cost. Set up a kickstarter and watch it happen. If your work isn't worth what it costs, then there's no market for you. Tough. But please stop all this lunacy, we need it to stop freaking yesterday.
-Sincerely, an audio engineer who understands what is wrong with the businesss
Comparing the wrong thing. GPL is not about lawfullness, GPL is about morals (it just happens to have a legal background, "because we can", or as I've read somewhere, "to turn copyright against itself and make it copyleft"). We think it's not moral to try to restrict the natural flow of information, which GPL promotes, and "proprietary copyright" forbids. Enough said. There are no inconsistencies in RMS's support of file sharing.
With properly produced content, no, this doesn't have these problems.
The camera that films video for this display is a light-field camera: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-field_camera
Surprisingly they're already being sold to mere mortals, but those are early models that are not mature enough to be used for video production (the Lytro is for consumers but can only take pictures, the Raytrix can take video but is for industrial applications).
In the meantime while these cameras mature, any way you can turn imagery into 3D models is fair game, maybe a wide-angle high resolution Kinect, or interpolation from two normal cameras (it's a bit more complex than interpolation but you get the idea), or mere image recognition a la gimmicky 2D-to-3D conversion, etc.
How long are we going to put up with his shit?
Forever. You kick out lamer smith, they kick in a replacement that shits just like him.
/facepalm...
I didn't think anything of the time-varying, but maybe I'm just spoiled because in my field we convert from PCM to PDM and back, every day for breakfast, and once again for dinner, and the mindset of resolution--time equivalence sort of sticks with you.
But yes, your version is more accurate.
No, that's pretty clear. Though irrelevant, as this is 3D and not stereo 2D.
No. The content itself is at a normal video frame rate, the extra frames are computed out of a map of the deltas between POVs at the displaying site.
Of course you still need to store that in the video somehow, but it's only the inevitable overhead of holographic vs. 2D, which isn't going to be anywhere near 1000 times bigger and is only going to get smaller as compression methods tailored to it are developed.
You know, you have a point regarding movies, I hadn't thought of that. However your point is invalid re:games. The only thing you achieve by flattening a game into 2D is that now you have to move your character to see occluded things, whereas the multiscopic 3D gives you the additional option of moving your head instead of your character, which can be a severe advantage when aiming (ie. you don't have to un-aim to look around).
Also, they are abusing the property of most real 3D scenes that not everything changes from one POV to another (ie. the middle of a diffuse-lit diffuse surface doesn't) to try to cram more POVs in less frames.
Think of this like an integral display: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_imaging#Description
Except that instead of using microlenses to bend the rays, they are using the layered screens to produce virtually bent rays. The high FPS is because they can only produce one set of virtually bent rays for any one frame, so they need as many frames as they want points of view. IOW what integral displays need in extra pixels this display needs in extra frames.
To put it another way, this is to integral what parallax is to lenticular.
Actually this makes 3D not suck. This is not at all like the 3D you've seen in your "games, movies and books/comics", this really is more like the 3D you see in real life.
Wireless is inherently more prone to this type of attack because you can listen to it, and if you can listen to it you can try to crack the encryption. With wired connections (we're not only talking about networks here, wireless keyboards too for example) most of the time this is impossible, even if you can somehow get at the wire the chances that no one is going to notice are non-zero. With wireless they can be exactly zero.
In practice not everything that connects wirelessly uses encryption, not everything that uses encryption uses unbreakable encryption, not everything that uses breakable encryption can be retrofitted to use something better - especially if it's a standard - and not everything that uses unbreakable encryption has non-vulnerable users (ie. users ignoring SSL warnings caused by a MITM WiFi hotspot, which has been done, though I don't have the links on hand).
Actually, if you're going to go this far, maybe it's just easier to use a virtual reality headset.
Easier, yes, but the problem with VR headsets besides resolution and image size is that you can't use eye movement, only head. That gets tiresome soon and is somewhat clumsy.
The best is big curved screen, like IMAX dome, or the closest thing you can get to that. Multimonitor angled is the closest most people can get.
In retrospective it doesn't matter, either way theft - the usual criminal purpose of these tools - is more like hunting than it is like killing, and one party of a war spying on another is more like (and often leads to actual) killing, so at any rate the GGP's analogy is backwards.
I personally find the inventor's decision reasonable in this case, though I fear I'm far unqualified to tell wether it's indeed a good decision or not.
imagine the inventor of the firearm deciding to call it quits because someone found a way to hunt with it instead of kill people (in self defense even?).
Except in this case, unless I'm missing something (is the Syrian government considered better or worse than the activists?), it's the other way around.
You don't have to know each other in real life to have a tight social group. It happens online too.
I'd rephrase it as: "These are not real friends, just people they stumbled upon on the Internet."
I don't use social networks but I have a feeling that's mostly what ends up happening.