I agree - strong copyright is ONLY a problem when the market is artificially restricted. The media conglomerates have a simple goal that makes perfect sense from the viewpoint of stuffing executives pockets with cash and making lazy shareholders happy. They want to turn information into the ultimate disposable commodity, keeping you from ever truly owning a copy of the information per se, giving them ultimate control over the artificial scarcity and thus the profitability of their product.
Meanwhile, we all know that these companies have been releasing less artists, pushing a smaller and smaller new product base of bland, lowest-common-denominator garbage. We know that there are millions of artists out there who can rival and best anything on the radio, who can't get radio play because the media is all in bed together and semi-legal payola is rife. We know that the world is full of people who are desperate to run web-based radio analogues who cannot because of the restrictive costs of royalties on copyrighted materials cleared through conventional resources like ASCAP.
It's time for the EFF to stop fighting the RIAA, which has the law on its side, and start promoting alternatives - the organization of a cooperative, non-profit copyright clearinghouse for independent musicians and labels to make music available for web-based "broadcasting" (we need new words for these things) and to set the stage for rationally managed file-sharing.
Music is not some stash of gold that the companies the RIAA represents have in a secret vault. Our goal should not be to force them to open that vault and make the gold available on our terms. Our goal should be to realize and take advantage of the fact that the ONLY limit on the amount of music we can get out there is the number of musicians we can support on the amount of money people are willing to pay for access. Even if we changed the law and convinced the RIAA to become a kinder, gentler corporate lobbying organization, we would still be wasting our money paying off shareholders, fat cat executives, and the mortgages on prima donna stars' summer mansions in the Bahamas. Better access to stupidly managed content is the booby prize of this ideological battle.
It makes perfect sense to have MS applications as appropriate for specific learning tasks - for example, as someone who's paid the rent many times in the past with temporary clerical work, it would be remiss in my mind to have a word processing/keyboarding class that did not teach MS Word. But multi-platform, multi-program proficiency can only be of benefit to a student.
Too late on this discussion to really get noticed, but I had to weigh in and say, the issue of taxation is almost always far more complex than the proponents of a particular side care to present it. The conservative presentation of the tax burden on the rich generally fails to address several critical issues.
One is, I suspect a lot of people like me are surprised to see they are only paying 8-10% income taxes. The reality is that I'm lucky to take home 75% of my paycheck after state taxes, social security and medicare - and this can be a significant issue when you consider that it can be argued that Social Security is actually regressive when you consider all factors (http://www.nber.org/digest/may00/w7520.html).
If you consider the total tax burden (not just what is called a "tax" but everything the government makes you pay money for, which is a tax in my book), the arguments that the rich carry a greater percent burden of the cost of maintaining our government becomes questionable at best (I dunno if a link to Slate is exactly an argument but it's a decent introduction to the various topics at stake http://slate.msn.com/id/2075483/).
The no-new-taxes dogma that is the gospel of many of the local allies of the current Republican administration, coupled with widespread deficits caused by irresponsible spending during the "projected surplus" days by BOTH parties, is panning out in an increased move towards increasing "technically non-tax" costs like license and tab fees etc. Functional taxes of this nature are of course straight-up regressive as they have no index to the wealth of the payer.
Another issue to take into account is that these percentages also look very different if you consider the tax burden as a percentage of people's DISCRETIONARY income rather than their total income. The poorer people are, the higher percentage of their income must be spent on the most basic necessities of housing, food, transportation, and medical care. Taxes and other government charge consequently account for a very high percentage of the discretionary income left after such necessities are eliminated, leaving a smaller percentage for self-improvements such as higher education or simply spending for personal satisfaction. For the wealthy, who have a much higher percentage of discretionary income, taxes and charges then represent a smaller component of the money they are free to spend. In short, even if I accepted that the overall tax system was progressive (which is, as I've shown, arguable), the reality remains that the wealthy have more discretionary income and thus more options.
Personally I'm sick to death of listening to how the rich are getting screwed in this society, which is so ridiculous it borders on the surreal. Wow, some nights I lay up worrying about winning the lottery and having to become one of those poor, overburdened rich folks. Then I think, hey, maybe I'll get lucky and lose my job and then I can live the happy, carefree life of the poor. The rich should carry the highest burden in society because they are receiving the greatest benefits from society and have the greatest access to the political systems that affect society. Their willingness to use this access to exercise their enormous greed deserves nothing but contempt. The fact that there individuals in lower income brackets who are so easily led to jump on the regressive tax bandwagon makes about as much sense to me as a gay Republican, but there you go.
Probably too late for this to get noticed, but as an interested layman I was curious about informed opinion about this quote from the interview w/L. Torvalds in the later link:
SCO alleges that you need to focus more on getting clarification as to where the code that goes in the Linux kernel comes from. Do you have any plans to change the current Linux development model?
No. I allege that SCO is full of it, and that the Linux process is already the most transparent process in the whole industry. Let's face it, nobody else even comes close to being as good at showing the evolution and source of every single line of code out there.
Informed opinion (yeah, I know - impossible to verify but...): is this true? It made sense to me when I read it but as a non-programmer, I've not participated in the actual development process. If this is a reasonable statement I think that it is an argument that needs more exposure, because it is strongly in favor of the open source development model.
You know, I mocked this too, but think about it... everybody and their brother wouldn't knock that dollar off the priceif they didn't believe that there was a real psychological effect greater than just "saving a dollar" (because honestly, unless you're obsessive, who thinks about a dollar when you're dropping $2-3K?) Of course this doesn't say much about Apple since tons of manufacturers do this. I wonder - has this been tested, or is it just a retail myth that has pervaded the culture... every time a product gets released the accountant says it needs to cost $X and some marketing guy says yeah, better knock that down to X-1.
Holy shit! Now that you mention it, all KINDS of manufacturers have been pulling this "knock off a dollar" trick on me. I've been getting duped! No wonder the money goes so fast...
Microsoft has two visions for the future of digital media: unlimited choice for consumers, and unlimited control for producers.
To go along with your total security on your MS server, presumably. More to the point, the only way these goals are compatible is that producers have the unlimited control to degrade their information and I have unlimited choice to not buy value-diminished products.
The record labels have seen what can happen when consumers gain total control
Do they mean what happens when producers strong-arm a technology into the market, and then realize they've given away something they don't want anyone to have due to their failure to understand technology?
the film studios aren't about to let file-sharing ruin them.
Thank God they developed unbreakable CSS encryption before they strong-armed DVDs into the market.
Like it or not, the path Microsoft takes will determine the future of digital media
I like not believing this is true. I could be wrong but then I'm in denial about a lot of unpleasant realities.
That's when the eHome division, which Poole helped start, teamed up with Hewlett-Packard and Samsung to unveil the Media Center Edition PC.
It's like a digital media hub. That Microsoft spirit of innovation marches on!
Scott Dinsdale, an executive VP of the Motion Picture Association of America, told the crowd that Microsoft and HP were using the Media Center Edition to "build a business on someone else's back." Asked to summarize Hollywood's attitude toward the PC, he said, "You don't screw with me, I won't screw with you. Don't play a movie on a PC ever again, and I won't say a word."
I think I'll just enjoy sitting back and watching this fight from the sidelines. That is possibly the most arrogant and stupid thing I've heard from the MPAA, which is saying a lot. A lot a lot.
Eisner added, "We will not let the fear of piracy prevent us from fueling the fundamental impulse to innovate. If we don't provide consumers with our product in a timely manner, the pirates will."
You could have read that sentiment on Slashdot years ago and got a real jump on the market, Michael. Must I be surrounded by idiots? Must they be running things?
The scary thing is, we're going to be seeing many, many more people like him as these games become more popular and our society becomes even more disconnected.
On the other hand, who cares? It will reduce traffic density and free up the job market. I can't wait until "wirehead" electrical stimulation of pleasure centers and fully immersive virtual reality become commonplace - I look forward to driving through the empty streets, as 90% of America retreats into a quiescent and obese stupor.
"The more you deal with people, the more you hate people," he said. "It just feels that everybody is so asleep in this world."
Yeah, I have a tough time taking this kind of sentiment from a person spending nearly half their waking life immersed in an artificial personality in an artificial world (I find the idea that because you can act out whatever the hell impulse you want in an online environment, it is somehow more "real" than the hard-copy world, stupid and offensive).
Mr. Stenlund, meanwhile, feels trapped - trapped in a town too far from big cities where big things happen... Madison WI may not be Las Vegas but it is one of the 100 largest cities in the USA, and although I haven't lived there myself it seems like a pretty good place as far as mid-sized cities go. A quick search of past accolades netted, among others:
Ranked #1 of Small-size Cities for Creativity by The Washington Monthly, #2 among "America's Best Places to Live and Work" by Employment Review Magazine, UW-Madison Ranked 35th in the World of Top Executive Eduation Providers by the London-based Financial Times, The Most Wired City in the Country by The Media Audit and International Demographics, One of Top Five Cities for Entrepreneurial Business Growth by the National Commission on Entrepreneurship, One of America's Most Environmentally Friendly Cities by ENN.com, #3 City for Business Owners by Business Development Outlook Magazine, Best City For Quality of Life by Business Development Outlook Magazine, Top 10 Cities to Have It All by A & E Network, September, 1999, #1 Best Places to Live in America, Money magazine, 10 Most Livable Places in America The Advocate, #5 America's 10 Most Enlightened Towns, Utne Reader, #3 Safest of Nation's 100 Largest Cities Morgan Quinto Press, Best Mid-Sized City Travel Getaway Midwest Living magazine
Sounds like opportunity exists there.
Though articulate and clearly intelligent, he skipped college because he believed that school stifled creativity.
And pardon me for being an elitist, but that's a thin excuse for not getting the credentials and connections, and the attendent opportunities, that go along with getting an advanced education. The only thing that can stifle a person's creativity is that person. There are well-worn paths of least resistance in all walks of life.
I think a lot of people could get caught up in something like this, particularly at at time when the track they've chosen suddenly veers south. But at the same time, this sounds like a profile of a person who likes shortcuts and is too quick to blame his environment for what are fundamentally personal problems. Online world's are what they are because they lack or simplify the real consequences, and many of the real difficulties and complexities, of the physical world. "Success" in that context is a third-class substitute for seeking the prosperity, relationships and recognition you need in the real world.
It happens to the ladies at that time of the month, buddy. For god's sake don't say anything about her looking "puffy." Just stick with that "gorgeous dame" line.
I know, but we still control the system that puts him in place. Of course, looking to past experience it's pure bluster anyway, people come to accept what their new ant overlords hand them and issues like this seem not to be significant on election day. But whattya gonna do?
There's more to this than whether you like the playlist on your local clone station, and if you don't get that then you probably deserve exactly the government you've got. Pity I have to get dragged down with you, though.
That line of condescending BS from Powell towards the end of the article regarding the fact that he doesn't really see public comment having much anything to do with public policy really burned my bacon, to the extent I felt compelled to address it directly in my comments to the FCC (just submitted).
"Let me also add a comment in direct response to the comments of Mr. Powell to the effect that "You don't govern just by polls and surveys." Public comment is neither a poll nor a survey, it is a vital element of democracy, required by law. And it is apparently critical as the FCC has clearly lost the understanding that their mission is to serve the American public. If the representatives of government choose to treat the voice of its citizens as unimportant, the its citizens will replace these representatives."
whether virtual world "property" can/should be treated as legal property
Sure - if it is not specifically contractually prevented by the terms the user agreed to in joining the community responsible for the game, and the transfer of said information does not violate anyone else's copyrights.
an analysis of whether virtual worlds can/should give rise to any other legal rights
Sure - if the community agreed-upon terms under which the game is conducted accomodates such rights.
These are simply collective works of fiction. The core legality arises from copyright law, nothing more. Everything else is contractual agreement and community agreed-upon terms (I'm sure some will protest that companies running a show does not a community make, but when you click "I Agree That You Are the Master and I am the Minion, Oh Great Corporate Overlords," you give up the right to that gripe.
To me the real crime about this is that it is clouding a much more critical issue, which is what is wrong with this messed up kid? Accepting the stupid, cheap answer that the media he consumed "made him do it" means not getting to the real, complex answer that is undoubtably there. I have to confess, maybe I'm getting old but as I guide an avatar through Enter the Matrix, gunning down hapless cops and watching them drop woozily to their knees before expiring, I have my moments where I wonder if this is the mental diet kids should be getting. But blaming murder on it is going far too far, and obstructs us, as a society, from really coming to grips with the roots of violence.
Unfortunately, this is just a typical, if escalated, example of the rhetoric the supporters of intellectual property insanity (read: multimedia conglomerates) are pushing. Try and have a discussion here about copyright without seeing people bicker over the fact that illegal duplication of copyrighted material is not legally "stealing" (in my opinion it's not morally equivalent either although it's in the ballpark and a lot more so if you are bootlegging for money).
The basic reality, and it does represent a problem for the business models of the mediaopolies, is that the vast majority of people don't take the transgression of illegal, non-commercial duplication seriously as a crime.
And this is the thing: I think copyright law is a good thing, by and large, it creates a lot of economic activity and can protect and enrich the artist who is wise enough not to give up that right, but the DMCA is a whole other thing. Controlling access to "burglars' tools" is one thing, but this is more like telling me I'm not allowed to go to the hardware store and get a duplicate key made for my own house.
These amplifications clarified your comments a lot for me... This particular case is fascinating to me as a person who is interested in the various Open Source models, but lacks the technical credentials, background and knowledge to speak to the many of the deeper issues. So I appreciate the input of people with more knowledge, but it can be difficult to judge authority.
Others called me on spinning more into your comments than was fair (guilty) - good rhetorical technique, not always the best way of getting to facts. I think it is very interesting, though, to ponder the vision versus elbow grease factor, if you will. I often look at the world of Open Source development as a sort of model anarchy, still my favorite idealistic model for self-governance. I think there is a need for visionaries and advocates, but what you say is true - there's a fine line between principles and dogma, and the latter usually ends up restricting your options.
Whether the actions of these two representatives (SCO and Eric Raymond) can really be meaningfully compared, you are making me lean to the belief that ultimately this lawsuit can be a good thing if it clarifies ownership of Unix (after reading that paper I have no idea what that really means).
Garbage. I do not have the historical knowledge or experience with software development to know whether your claim that this paper is at LEAST as revisionist and self serving as SCO's, but I don't need it to know that your assertion that SCO suing is equivalent to putting their money where their mouth is is specious.
Your statement that SCO risks destroying what's left of their IP and credibility tacitly recognizes that the value of their assets was diminished prior to this lawsuit - which makes the gamble you admire them so much for seem a lot less daring. The actions of SCO are being widely seen as a last-ditch effort to sell out a failing business model. Sounds a lot more like putting your mouth where your money isn't.
If SCO's claims are substantially false then this lawsuit is about significantly more than them taking a gamble and winning or losing. It is about business participants in the open source software community abusing the court systems out of self-interest. Actions of this nature are a significant threat to the viability of open source development, and that is a considerable burden to add when you consider that businesses with a vested interest in maintaining a monopolistic interest in proprietary software development (not to name any names) invest significantly in spreading disinformation about open source, including in lobbying efforts to sway the decisions of our legislators.
Eric Raymond and his co-authors, meanwhile, are expressing an opinion and making it public. You are not obligated to read or believe it. It does not put a burden on the court system or require any business to divert money that could be spent on creating value in the economy on defending against litigation.
Every community has its zealots. Clearly you have philosophical differences with Eric Raymond. So, if you want to make a point, demonstrate specific points in this paper and show using verifiable evidence that they are false or misleading. Contribute to the dialog. Otherwise you're just being contrary.
One last thing - your final comment seems to imply that it is poissible for any endeavor to acheive the best results, without containing a component of vision or mission. I think this is false, and it is particularly false in the world of cooperative, distributed efforts.
Maybe they could do like that 80's era cliche Japanese corporation with the workers doing their daily calisthenic and corporate anthem singing session. Every two hours everyone's computer would open the gaming window for fifteen minutes.
Yeah, I admit I was a bit mystified by the original post implication that it was more than just a retread on the first two, 'cause I didn't see that. Hokay, we've got the implacable robot foe. Will nothing make it stop?! WE've got the character who knows all about the future... but who will believe him, it all sounds crazy! And is it just me, or did they blow the wad on the better generation of robot killer concept with Mr. Liquid Metal? What's the real innovation here? Oh yeah - it's a chick. Ooh, look - you get to see her tushie when she drops outta the space time continuum. I may see it out of nostalgia, but if it's indeed PG-13 (a designation which seems, 99.9% of the time, to indicate "we've dumbed this thing down to be accessible to the dumbest 13 year old we could find and expunged all sex and nudity so we can cram in a little bit more cartoon violence) I'll probably give it a pass, or save it for a throwaway rental when it hits the older releases racks.
Whether it's a good idea or not, I think that it is intentional. I have a certain nostalgia for the Terminator franchise that will probably get me into the theater - but the 14-17 yr olds needed for a science fiction action film to get blockbuster status were unborn when the original came out (feel... so... old...) and 3-6 years old when the sequel appeared. But they know the Matrix so the idea of hey, it's another movie about machines taking over juxtaposition may seem worthwhile.
Slashdot Mirror
Meanwhile, we all know that these companies have been releasing less artists, pushing a smaller and smaller new product base of bland, lowest-common-denominator garbage. We know that there are millions of artists out there who can rival and best anything on the radio, who can't get radio play because the media is all in bed together and semi-legal payola is rife. We know that the world is full of people who are desperate to run web-based radio analogues who cannot because of the restrictive costs of royalties on copyrighted materials cleared through conventional resources like ASCAP.
It's time for the EFF to stop fighting the RIAA, which has the law on its side, and start promoting alternatives - the organization of a cooperative, non-profit copyright clearinghouse for independent musicians and labels to make music available for web-based "broadcasting" (we need new words for these things) and to set the stage for rationally managed file-sharing.
Music is not some stash of gold that the companies the RIAA represents have in a secret vault. Our goal should not be to force them to open that vault and make the gold available on our terms. Our goal should be to realize and take advantage of the fact that the ONLY limit on the amount of music we can get out there is the number of musicians we can support on the amount of money people are willing to pay for access. Even if we changed the law and convinced the RIAA to become a kinder, gentler corporate lobbying organization, we would still be wasting our money paying off shareholders, fat cat executives, and the mortgages on prima donna stars' summer mansions in the Bahamas. Better access to stupidly managed content is the booby prize of this ideological battle.
It makes perfect sense to have MS applications as appropriate for specific learning tasks - for example, as someone who's paid the rent many times in the past with temporary clerical work, it would be remiss in my mind to have a word processing/keyboarding class that did not teach MS Word. But multi-platform, multi-program proficiency can only be of benefit to a student.
One is, I suspect a lot of people like me are surprised to see they are only paying 8-10% income taxes. The reality is that I'm lucky to take home 75% of my paycheck after state taxes, social security and medicare - and this can be a significant issue when you consider that it can be argued that Social Security is actually regressive when you consider all factors (http://www.nber.org/digest/may00/w7520.html).
If you consider the total tax burden (not just what is called a "tax" but everything the government makes you pay money for, which is a tax in my book), the arguments that the rich carry a greater percent burden of the cost of maintaining our government becomes questionable at best (I dunno if a link to Slate is exactly an argument but it's a decent introduction to the various topics at stake http://slate.msn.com/id/2075483/).
The no-new-taxes dogma that is the gospel of many of the local allies of the current Republican administration, coupled with widespread deficits caused by irresponsible spending during the "projected surplus" days by BOTH parties, is panning out in an increased move towards increasing "technically non-tax" costs like license and tab fees etc. Functional taxes of this nature are of course straight-up regressive as they have no index to the wealth of the payer.
Another issue to take into account is that these percentages also look very different if you consider the tax burden as a percentage of people's DISCRETIONARY income rather than their total income. The poorer people are, the higher percentage of their income must be spent on the most basic necessities of housing, food, transportation, and medical care. Taxes and other government charge consequently account for a very high percentage of the discretionary income left after such necessities are eliminated, leaving a smaller percentage for self-improvements such as higher education or simply spending for personal satisfaction. For the wealthy, who have a much higher percentage of discretionary income, taxes and charges then represent a smaller component of the money they are free to spend. In short, even if I accepted that the overall tax system was progressive (which is, as I've shown, arguable), the reality remains that the wealthy have more discretionary income and thus more options.
Personally I'm sick to death of listening to how the rich are getting screwed in this society, which is so ridiculous it borders on the surreal. Wow, some nights I lay up worrying about winning the lottery and having to become one of those poor, overburdened rich folks. Then I think, hey, maybe I'll get lucky and lose my job and then I can live the happy, carefree life of the poor. The rich should carry the highest burden in society because they are receiving the greatest benefits from society and have the greatest access to the political systems that affect society. Their willingness to use this access to exercise their enormous greed deserves nothing but contempt. The fact that there individuals in lower income brackets who are so easily led to jump on the regressive tax bandwagon makes about as much sense to me as a gay Republican, but there you go.
SCO alleges that you need to focus more on getting clarification as to where the code that goes in the Linux kernel comes from. Do you have any plans to change the current Linux development model?
No. I allege that SCO is full of it, and that the Linux process is already the most transparent process in the whole industry. Let's face it, nobody else even comes close to being as good at showing the evolution and source of every single line of code out there.
Informed opinion (yeah, I know - impossible to verify but...): is this true? It made sense to me when I read it but as a non-programmer, I've not participated in the actual development process. If this is a reasonable statement I think that it is an argument that needs more exposure, because it is strongly in favor of the open source development model.
You know, I mocked this too, but think about it... everybody and their brother wouldn't knock that dollar off the priceif they didn't believe that there was a real psychological effect greater than just "saving a dollar" (because honestly, unless you're obsessive, who thinks about a dollar when you're dropping $2-3K?) Of course this doesn't say much about Apple since tons of manufacturers do this. I wonder - has this been tested, or is it just a retail myth that has pervaded the culture... every time a product gets released the accountant says it needs to cost $X and some marketing guy says yeah, better knock that down to X-1.
Holy shit! Now that you mention it, all KINDS of manufacturers have been pulling this "knock off a dollar" trick on me. I've been getting duped! No wonder the money goes so fast...
So, where did you hear about me?
To go along with your total security on your MS server, presumably. More to the point, the only way these goals are compatible is that producers have the unlimited control to degrade their information and I have unlimited choice to not buy value-diminished products.
The record labels have seen what can happen when consumers gain total control
Do they mean what happens when producers strong-arm a technology into the market, and then realize they've given away something they don't want anyone to have due to their failure to understand technology?
the film studios aren't about to let file-sharing ruin them.
Thank God they developed unbreakable CSS encryption before they strong-armed DVDs into the market.
Like it or not, the path Microsoft takes will determine the future of digital media
I like not believing this is true. I could be wrong but then I'm in denial about a lot of unpleasant realities.
That's when the eHome division, which Poole helped start, teamed up with Hewlett-Packard and Samsung to unveil the Media Center Edition PC.
It's like a digital media hub. That Microsoft spirit of innovation marches on!
Scott Dinsdale, an executive VP of the Motion Picture Association of America, told the crowd that Microsoft and HP were using the Media Center Edition to "build a business on someone else's back." Asked to summarize Hollywood's attitude toward the PC, he said, "You don't screw with me, I won't screw with you. Don't play a movie on a PC ever again, and I won't say a word."
I think I'll just enjoy sitting back and watching this fight from the sidelines. That is possibly the most arrogant and stupid thing I've heard from the MPAA, which is saying a lot. A lot a lot.
Eisner added, "We will not let the fear of piracy prevent us from fueling the fundamental impulse to innovate. If we don't provide consumers with our product in a timely manner, the pirates will."
You could have read that sentiment on Slashdot years ago and got a real jump on the market, Michael. Must I be surrounded by idiots? Must they be running things?
The scary thing is, we're going to be seeing many, many more people like him as these games become more popular and our society becomes even more disconnected.
On the other hand, who cares? It will reduce traffic density and free up the job market. I can't wait until "wirehead" electrical stimulation of pleasure centers and fully immersive virtual reality become commonplace - I look forward to driving through the empty streets, as 90% of America retreats into a quiescent and obese stupor.
Yeah, I have a tough time taking this kind of sentiment from a person spending nearly half their waking life immersed in an artificial personality in an artificial world (I find the idea that because you can act out whatever the hell impulse you want in an online environment, it is somehow more "real" than the hard-copy world, stupid and offensive).
Mr. Stenlund, meanwhile, feels trapped - trapped in a town too far from big cities where big things happen... Madison WI may not be Las Vegas but it is one of the 100 largest cities in the USA, and although I haven't lived there myself it seems like a pretty good place as far as mid-sized cities go. A quick search of past accolades netted, among others:
Ranked #1 of Small-size Cities for Creativity by The Washington Monthly, #2 among "America's Best Places to Live and Work" by Employment Review Magazine, UW-Madison Ranked 35th in the World of Top Executive Eduation Providers by the London-based Financial Times, The Most Wired City in the Country by The Media Audit and International Demographics, One of Top Five Cities for Entrepreneurial Business Growth by the National Commission on Entrepreneurship, One of America's Most Environmentally Friendly Cities by ENN.com, #3 City for Business Owners by Business Development Outlook Magazine, Best City For Quality of Life by Business Development Outlook Magazine, Top 10 Cities to Have It All by A & E Network, September, 1999, #1 Best Places to Live in America, Money magazine, 10 Most Livable Places in America The Advocate, #5 America's 10 Most Enlightened Towns, Utne Reader, #3 Safest of Nation's 100 Largest Cities Morgan Quinto Press, Best Mid-Sized City Travel Getaway Midwest Living magazine
Sounds like opportunity exists there.
Though articulate and clearly intelligent, he skipped college because he believed that school stifled creativity.
And pardon me for being an elitist, but that's a thin excuse for not getting the credentials and connections, and the attendent opportunities, that go along with getting an advanced education. The only thing that can stifle a person's creativity is that person. There are well-worn paths of least resistance in all walks of life.
I think a lot of people could get caught up in something like this, particularly at at time when the track they've chosen suddenly veers south. But at the same time, this sounds like a profile of a person who likes shortcuts and is too quick to blame his environment for what are fundamentally personal problems. Online world's are what they are because they lack or simplify the real consequences, and many of the real difficulties and complexities, of the physical world. "Success" in that context is a third-class substitute for seeking the prosperity, relationships and recognition you need in the real world.
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/membership.php
Sure it's a pain in the ass. Oh, or did you want someone ELSE to "stop them."
It happens to the ladies at that time of the month, buddy. For god's sake don't say anything about her looking "puffy." Just stick with that "gorgeous dame" line.
I know, but we still control the system that puts him in place. Of course, looking to past experience it's pure bluster anyway, people come to accept what their new ant overlords hand them and issues like this seem not to be significant on election day. But whattya gonna do?
There's more to this than whether you like the playlist on your local clone station, and if you don't get that then you probably deserve exactly the government you've got. Pity I have to get dragged down with you, though.
"Let me also add a comment in direct response to the comments of Mr. Powell to the effect that "You don't govern just by polls and surveys." Public comment is neither a poll nor a survey, it is a vital element of democracy, required by law. And it is apparently critical as the FCC has clearly lost the understanding that their mission is to serve the American public. If the representatives of government choose to treat the voice of its citizens as unimportant, the its citizens will replace these representatives."
Sure - if it is not specifically contractually prevented by the terms the user agreed to in joining the community responsible for the game, and the transfer of said information does not violate anyone else's copyrights.
an analysis of whether virtual worlds can/should give rise to any other legal rights
Sure - if the community agreed-upon terms under which the game is conducted accomodates such rights.
These are simply collective works of fiction. The core legality arises from copyright law, nothing more. Everything else is contractual agreement and community agreed-upon terms (I'm sure some will protest that companies running a show does not a community make, but when you click "I Agree That You Are the Master and I am the Minion, Oh Great Corporate Overlords," you give up the right to that gripe.
To me the real crime about this is that it is clouding a much more critical issue, which is what is wrong with this messed up kid? Accepting the stupid, cheap answer that the media he consumed "made him do it" means not getting to the real, complex answer that is undoubtably there. I have to confess, maybe I'm getting old but as I guide an avatar through Enter the Matrix, gunning down hapless cops and watching them drop woozily to their knees before expiring, I have my moments where I wonder if this is the mental diet kids should be getting. But blaming murder on it is going far too far, and obstructs us, as a society, from really coming to grips with the roots of violence.
The basic reality, and it does represent a problem for the business models of the mediaopolies, is that the vast majority of people don't take the transgression of illegal, non-commercial duplication seriously as a crime.
And this is the thing: I think copyright law is a good thing, by and large, it creates a lot of economic activity and can protect and enrich the artist who is wise enough not to give up that right, but the DMCA is a whole other thing. Controlling access to "burglars' tools" is one thing, but this is more like telling me I'm not allowed to go to the hardware store and get a duplicate key made for my own house.
Ermmm... but stealing BMWs makes sense. It's the summer's new blockbuster - Gone in 60 Minutes
Others called me on spinning more into your comments than was fair (guilty) - good rhetorical technique, not always the best way of getting to facts. I think it is very interesting, though, to ponder the vision versus elbow grease factor, if you will. I often look at the world of Open Source development as a sort of model anarchy, still my favorite idealistic model for self-governance. I think there is a need for visionaries and advocates, but what you say is true - there's a fine line between principles and dogma, and the latter usually ends up restricting your options.
Whether the actions of these two representatives (SCO and Eric Raymond) can really be meaningfully compared, you are making me lean to the belief that ultimately this lawsuit can be a good thing if it clarifies ownership of Unix (after reading that paper I have no idea what that really means).
Your statement that SCO risks destroying what's left of their IP and credibility tacitly recognizes that the value of their assets was diminished prior to this lawsuit - which makes the gamble you admire them so much for seem a lot less daring. The actions of SCO are being widely seen as a last-ditch effort to sell out a failing business model. Sounds a lot more like putting your mouth where your money isn't.
If SCO's claims are substantially false then this lawsuit is about significantly more than them taking a gamble and winning or losing. It is about business participants in the open source software community abusing the court systems out of self-interest. Actions of this nature are a significant threat to the viability of open source development, and that is a considerable burden to add when you consider that businesses with a vested interest in maintaining a monopolistic interest in proprietary software development (not to name any names) invest significantly in spreading disinformation about open source, including in lobbying efforts to sway the decisions of our legislators.
Eric Raymond and his co-authors, meanwhile, are expressing an opinion and making it public. You are not obligated to read or believe it. It does not put a burden on the court system or require any business to divert money that could be spent on creating value in the economy on defending against litigation.
Every community has its zealots. Clearly you have philosophical differences with Eric Raymond. So, if you want to make a point, demonstrate specific points in this paper and show using verifiable evidence that they are false or misleading. Contribute to the dialog. Otherwise you're just being contrary.
One last thing - your final comment seems to imply that it is poissible for any endeavor to acheive the best results, without containing a component of vision or mission. I think this is false, and it is particularly false in the world of cooperative, distributed efforts.
Maybe they could do like that 80's era cliche Japanese corporation with the workers doing their daily calisthenic and corporate anthem singing session. Every two hours everyone's computer would open the gaming window for fifteen minutes.
Yeah, I admit I was a bit mystified by the original post implication that it was more than just a retread on the first two, 'cause I didn't see that. Hokay, we've got the implacable robot foe. Will nothing make it stop?! WE've got the character who knows all about the future... but who will believe him, it all sounds crazy! And is it just me, or did they blow the wad on the better generation of robot killer concept with Mr. Liquid Metal? What's the real innovation here? Oh yeah - it's a chick. Ooh, look - you get to see her tushie when she drops outta the space time continuum. I may see it out of nostalgia, but if it's indeed PG-13 (a designation which seems, 99.9% of the time, to indicate "we've dumbed this thing down to be accessible to the dumbest 13 year old we could find and expunged all sex and nudity so we can cram in a little bit more cartoon violence) I'll probably give it a pass, or save it for a throwaway rental when it hits the older releases racks.
Whether it's a good idea or not, I think that it is intentional. I have a certain nostalgia for the Terminator franchise that will probably get me into the theater - but the 14-17 yr olds needed for a science fiction action film to get blockbuster status were unborn when the original came out (feel... so... old...) and 3-6 years old when the sequel appeared. But they know the Matrix so the idea of hey, it's another movie about machines taking over juxtaposition may seem worthwhile.
Ahh... interesting. It's going to be fun to watch this one pan out...