In August, the BBC showed an "Omnibus" documentary on Douglas Adams' life, which said, along with the fact that Adams suffered writer's block a lot, that the only way he could be persuaded to finish the fifth novel, Mostly Harmless, was to set it up so that all Planet Earths in all possible universes ceased to exist - that way nobody could ask him to write a sixth Hitch Hiker novel!
The BBC page seems to think that the unfinished bits of novel that have been found comprise the sixth Hitch Hiker novel. This is unlikely, as that interview says. I would have thought it is something completely new, i.e. neither Hitch Hiker nor Dirk Gently, but the BBC article says that the work will be edited - could this mean that bits of separate stories might be merged to produce a novel? In any case, I hope it is done in a way Douglas' family feel he would have wanted.
I thought that the Salmon of Doubt started off as a Dirk Gently novel, but then Douglas Adams realised that the ideas he had didn't fit in with Dirk Gently, so part way through writing it he decided to change it into an entirely new story, i.e. neither a Hitch Hiker book nor a Dirk Gently book.
This is not the Illiad who brazenly stated that Microsoft products were three-coiled turds. This is the new, marketroid Illiad, determined to make his bland comic the perfect vector for sales pitches from large IT companies.
I really don't think this is the case at all. Illiad says here that "The explicit rule is, the business side has *zero* impact on the cartoon strip. In fact, if you read the Investor FAQ, it reveals that I still draw pretty much anything I damn well please."
This can be shown by the fact that Illiad also states that the CEO runs the business side (UFMedia), and he runs the content side (the cartoon strip). User Friendly is not a "commercial cash cow", Illiad is making a living out of what he does, and without letting business interests intrude on his readership's interests.
I have been reading User Friendly for about a year and a half now, and I admit that when I was first introduced to it, I didn't find it all that hilarious. But then I read all the strips from day one (I wonder how many people on this board who have posted merely to say "UF sucks" have actually done that?) and in my opinion it's still as funny as it ever was. Anyone who doesn't like it is of course entitled to their opinion, but as an earlier poster pointed out, a large proportion of the criticisms on this board are to do with Illiad's drawing, which he makes fun of himself (see this strip and this one.)
software is not a "device"... and even *if* it were this would have NO effect on software written places other than the USA...
In an ideal world, of course, US-based legislation will have no effect outside the US, but actual laws would appear take a back seat to the whims of large enough corporations.
Consider two well publicised cases involving the DMCA. DeCSS is software, and was created in Norway, but it was still labelled a "circumvention device", under the DMCA, which is of course a US law that shouldn't apply in Norway.
Dmitry Sklyarov created the e-book decryption program in Russia, and it was labelled a circumvention device, and Sklyarov was prosecuted under the same *US* law.
Say someone in a non-US country puts some software on the web which does not conform to whatever "standards" the government see fit. It can be argued that since the software is on the web, it is available in the US, and so it is breaking US law.
Therefore, if this law is passed, and if I am correct in my thinking, the US government will be able to prosecute anyone who puts non-certified (say, Free) software on the web, as it can be argued that someone in the US can download it, so therefore whoever uploaded the software can be accused of "offering it to the public".
So the SSSCA is actually a lot scarier than you might think. Even if the legal grounds for applying US law to other countries are shaky, corporate lawyers will find some way of doing so, as they have done with the DMCA.
The link "IP banned permanently" above, which appears to link to a post on slashdot, in fact points to a goatse.cx site, and is part of the above post.
The Daily Telegraph, 10th April 2001, page 1, rightmost column, to page 2, column 2: The law introducing compulsory metrication for loose goods was changed in 1994 when a Tory minister, Earl Ferrers, signed regulations allowing a 1989 European directive into law.
OK, so it is British law, but the metrication laws were put in place by a European directive, much like this directive about Copyright Law.
A ruling that said some bananas couldn't be sold because they were too straight and a ruling that certain apples (Granny Smith's, a popular English variety) couldn't legally be called apples because they were too small.
Don't forget those rulings about imperial measurements... I believe a grocer was convicted this week of selling a bunch of bananas at 29p/lb and not 64p/kg. Selling loose goods in imperial units is a violation of EU laws.
Something tells me these people have WAY too much time on their hands.
And as we speak, the legislators are probably thinking of some other hare-brained ruling to introduce, like the precise curvature equation of what can legally be called a toilet bowl....
If I could just point out this little discrepancy... I apologise if it's already been noticed.
...Open Hardware PC platform revolution was ignited. Motherboards, memory, adapter cards, etc... could be made by anybody; hardware innovation increased at a rapid pace, and prices plummeted.
So hardware innovation increased at a rapid rate. But didn't Jim Allchin say a few weeks ago that Open projects stifle innovation? (I couldn't find the exact quote, but the slashdot story is here and the Register's story is here.)
Computers are driven either into totally dumbed down, copy control encrypted, AOL compliant Idiot Boxes (or might be rendered illegal as a copy protection circumvention device eventually), media, especially movies and music, are turned into a pay per view event, provided you have the properly licensed Idiot Box...
This is already happening, but so slowly we don't notice it. Ostensibly to appear more "user-friendly", computers now come with Windows pre-installed, with no Windows CD, just a "Restore kit". Computers you buy in the high street that claim to contain modems actually contain WinModems. These are relatively trivial things, I agree. But, "idiot boxes" of the style you mention are going to be all that is available in ten, maybe five years. Take a look at this article on The Register - it sums up what is going on. Computers will be a thing of the past, and instead of owning an all-purpose computer, you will have to licence, not buy, a range of ridiculously overpriced proprietary devices.
To watch a film in your house, at the moment, you can buy a TV from any electronics company you please, a VCR from anyone you please, and rent a tape from your local video shop. You can even fast forward the adverts.
In ten years, you'd need to rent, not buy, a Media-Industry approved TV (which you do not own, but is licenced to you under a restrictive contract) and an approved DVD player (VHS having been declared a circumvention device in, say, 2003). Furthermore, you will be forced to watch the adverts (leaving the room whilst the adverts are playing being in breach of the licence you implicitly agreed to by playing the disc), and to watch it again, you'd need to pay again.
With new technology, things should get better for the public, not worse. This is why, as I mentioned in my earlier post, the general public need to be properly informed NOW as to what these corporations are trying to do. In my view, enough public outcry should banish the DMCA from Europe.
When you are up against organised cartels like that of Disney, Sony, MGM, Paramount, Fox, Universal, Warner, not to mention the host of other MegaCorps who have interests in usurious IP legislation, individuals (ie. natural persons) will not be heard.
The fact that the DMCA was passed in the USA is testament to the idea that this is the case. There is practically nothing in it that is in the public interest, especially the bit about copy control on VCRs.
Laws are supposed to be in the best interests of the public, whether directly or indirectly. For example, take speed limits on roads. Although they can be an annoyance, and every driver has broken a speed limit at some point, we all know that they are put in place to protect the safety of motorists and pedestrians. If there was a referendum tomorrow asking whether speed limits should be abolished, 90% of the public would vote no.
With the DMCA it is different. If the public were all educated on what it actually means, 90% of them would want it struck from the law books.
I believe this is why there is never anything on the news about the DMCA or similar "copyright" acts (at least not here in Britain) - because the MegaCorps do not want the general public to know what it actually entails.
This uphill struggle can be turned into a short saunter up a mildly steep gradient if the public were properly informed about laws such as the DMCA, as it could create enough uproar about violating citizen's rights that governments would need to think twice before implementing DMCA-like laws.
Maybe not... I don't think anybody has pointed this out yet, but the DMCA states something like:
Nothing in this section [the section about circumvention] shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.
I understand this to mean that you may circumvent a copy control measure for the sole purpose of fair use, i.e. timeshifting.
I am not a lawyer, so do correct me if I've misunderstood it.
I couldn't agree more! It's a shameless way of corporate gits in suits squeezing every last penny possible out of Fred Bloggs at home.
Where will we stand in 2010? Computer chips implanted in our brains to eradicate all memory of a movie you've just seen, as memory is a form of recording, and therefore piracy?
Police raids on houses, and confiscation of VCRs that don't comply with the "no-record bit" system? "Got a VCR here, Sarge. Capable of letting the owner record a programme while he's not in and allowing him to watch it later. You're looking at five years, mate."
I can imagine insanely rich people in suits gathered round a conference table at this very moment.
"Once these measures are in place, we will have even more money than ever, and all out of consumers pockets!"
(Evil laughs echo through conference room)
"Right, any other way we can get even more material gain?"
"We could place a feature in VCRs that put on EXTRA commercials at random times, interrupting the programme. Then we take a cut of the fee paid by the advertiser to the TV network."
"Excellent idea, Ponsenby-Smythe! I'll get on the phone to the boss. He will be pleased! All day we just think of more and more ways of screwing the customers over, and at minimal inconvenience to us corporate types!"
Slashdot Mirror
In August, the BBC showed an "Omnibus" documentary on Douglas Adams' life, which said, along with the fact that Adams suffered writer's block a lot, that the only way he could be persuaded to finish the fifth novel, Mostly Harmless, was to set it up so that all Planet Earths in all possible universes ceased to exist - that way nobody could ask him to write a sixth Hitch Hiker novel!
The BBC page seems to think that the unfinished bits of novel that have been found comprise the sixth Hitch Hiker novel. This is unlikely, as that interview says. I would have thought it is something completely new, i.e. neither Hitch Hiker nor Dirk Gently, but the BBC article says that the work will be edited - could this mean that bits of separate stories might be merged to produce a novel? In any case, I hope it is done in a way Douglas' family feel he would have wanted.
I thought that the Salmon of Doubt started off as a Dirk Gently novel, but then Douglas Adams realised that the ideas he had didn't fit in with Dirk Gently, so part way through writing it he decided to change it into an entirely new story, i.e. neither a Hitch Hiker book nor a Dirk Gently book.
This is not the Illiad who brazenly stated that Microsoft products were three-coiled turds. This is the new, marketroid Illiad, determined to make his bland comic the perfect vector for sales pitches from large IT companies.
I really don't think this is the case at all. Illiad says here that "The explicit rule is, the business side has *zero* impact on the cartoon strip. In fact, if you read the Investor FAQ, it reveals that I still draw pretty much anything I damn well please."
This can be shown by the fact that Illiad also states that the CEO runs the business side (UFMedia), and he runs the content side (the cartoon strip). User Friendly is not a "commercial cash cow", Illiad is making a living out of what he does, and without letting business interests intrude on his readership's interests.
I have been reading User Friendly for about a year and a half now, and I admit that when I was first introduced to it, I didn't find it all that hilarious. But then I read all the strips from day one (I wonder how many people on this board who have posted merely to say "UF sucks" have actually done that?) and in my opinion it's still as funny as it ever was. Anyone who doesn't like it is of course entitled to their opinion, but as an earlier poster pointed out, a large proportion of the criticisms on this board are to do with Illiad's drawing, which he makes fun of himself (see this strip and this one.)
software is not a "device"... and even *if* it were this would have NO effect on software written places other than the USA...
In an ideal world, of course, US-based legislation will have no effect outside the US, but actual laws would appear take a back seat to the whims of large enough corporations.
Consider two well publicised cases involving the DMCA. DeCSS is software, and was created in Norway, but it was still labelled a "circumvention device", under the DMCA, which is of course a US law that shouldn't apply in Norway.
Dmitry Sklyarov created the e-book decryption program in Russia, and it was labelled a circumvention device, and Sklyarov was prosecuted under the same *US* law.
Say someone in a non-US country puts some software on the web which does not conform to whatever "standards" the government see fit. It can be argued that since the software is on the web, it is available in the US, and so it is breaking US law.
Therefore, if this law is passed, and if I am correct in my thinking, the US government will be able to prosecute anyone who puts non-certified (say, Free) software on the web, as it can be argued that someone in the US can download it, so therefore whoever uploaded the software can be accused of "offering it to the public".
So the SSSCA is actually a lot scarier than you might think. Even if the legal grounds for applying US law to other countries are shaky, corporate lawyers will find some way of doing so, as they have done with the DMCA.
The link "IP banned permanently" above, which appears to link to a post on slashdot, in fact points to a goatse.cx site, and is part of the above post.
The Daily Telegraph, 10th April 2001, page 1, rightmost column, to page 2, column 2:
The law introducing compulsory metrication for loose goods was changed in 1994 when a Tory minister, Earl Ferrers, signed regulations allowing a 1989 European directive into law.
OK, so it is British law, but the metrication laws were put in place by a European directive, much like this directive about Copyright Law.
A ruling that said some bananas couldn't be sold because they were too straight and a ruling that certain apples (Granny Smith's, a popular English variety) couldn't legally be called apples because they were too small.
Don't forget those rulings about imperial measurements... I believe a grocer was convicted this week of selling a bunch of bananas at 29p/lb and not 64p/kg. Selling loose goods in imperial units is a violation of EU laws.
Something tells me these people have WAY too much time on their hands.
And as we speak, the legislators are probably thinking of some other hare-brained ruling to introduce, like the precise curvature equation of what can legally be called a toilet bowl....
If I could just point out this little discrepancy... I apologise if it's already been noticed.
...Open Hardware PC platform revolution was ignited. Motherboards, memory, adapter cards, etc... could be made by anybody; hardware innovation increased at a rapid pace, and prices plummeted.
So hardware innovation increased at a rapid rate. But didn't Jim Allchin say a few weeks ago that Open projects stifle innovation? (I couldn't find the exact quote, but the slashdot story is here and the Register's story is here.)
--
Computers are driven either into totally dumbed down, copy control encrypted, AOL compliant Idiot Boxes (or might be rendered illegal as a copy protection circumvention device eventually), media, especially movies and music, are turned into a pay per view event, provided you have the properly licensed Idiot Box...
This is already happening, but so slowly we don't notice it. Ostensibly to appear more "user-friendly", computers now come with Windows pre-installed, with no Windows CD, just a "Restore kit". Computers you buy in the high street that claim to contain modems actually contain WinModems. These are relatively trivial things, I agree. But, "idiot boxes" of the style you mention are going to be all that is available in ten, maybe five years. Take a look at this article on The Register - it sums up what is going on. Computers will be a thing of the past, and instead of owning an all-purpose computer, you will have to licence, not buy, a range of ridiculously overpriced proprietary devices.
To watch a film in your house, at the moment, you can buy a TV from any electronics company you please, a VCR from anyone you please, and rent a tape from your local video shop. You can even fast forward the adverts.
In ten years, you'd need to rent, not buy, a Media-Industry approved TV (which you do not own, but is licenced to you under a restrictive contract) and an approved DVD player (VHS having been declared a circumvention device in, say, 2003). Furthermore, you will be forced to watch the adverts (leaving the room whilst the adverts are playing being in breach of the licence you implicitly agreed to by playing the disc), and to watch it again, you'd need to pay again.
With new technology, things should get better for the public, not worse. This is why, as I mentioned in my earlier post, the general public need to be properly informed NOW as to what these corporations are trying to do. In my view, enough public outcry should banish the DMCA from Europe.
When you are up against organised cartels like that of Disney, Sony, MGM, Paramount, Fox, Universal, Warner, not to mention the host of other MegaCorps who have interests in usurious IP legislation, individuals (ie. natural persons) will not be heard.
The fact that the DMCA was passed in the USA is testament to the idea that this is the case. There is practically nothing in it that is in the public interest, especially the bit about copy control on VCRs.
Laws are supposed to be in the best interests of the public, whether directly or indirectly. For example, take speed limits on roads. Although they can be an annoyance, and every driver has broken a speed limit at some point, we all know that they are put in place to protect the safety of motorists and pedestrians. If there was a referendum tomorrow asking whether speed limits should be abolished, 90% of the public would vote no.
With the DMCA it is different. If the public were all educated on what it actually means, 90% of them would want it struck from the law books.
I believe this is why there is never anything on the news about the DMCA or similar "copyright" acts (at least not here in Britain) - because the MegaCorps do not want the general public to know what it actually entails.
This uphill struggle can be turned into a short saunter up a mildly steep gradient if the public were properly informed about laws such as the DMCA, as it could create enough uproar about violating citizen's rights that governments would need to think twice before implementing DMCA-like laws.
Maybe not... I don't think anybody has pointed this out yet, but the DMCA states something like:
Nothing in this section [the section about circumvention] shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.
I understand this to mean that you may circumvent a copy control measure for the sole purpose of fair use, i.e. timeshifting.
I am not a lawyer, so do correct me if I've misunderstood it.
Stavros
--
I couldn't agree more! It's a shameless way of corporate gits in suits squeezing every last penny possible out of Fred Bloggs at home.
Where will we stand in 2010? Computer chips implanted in our brains to eradicate all memory of a movie you've just seen, as memory is a form of recording, and therefore piracy?
Police raids on houses, and confiscation of VCRs that don't comply with the "no-record bit" system? "Got a VCR here, Sarge. Capable of letting the owner record a programme while he's not in and allowing him to watch it later. You're looking at five years, mate."
I can imagine insanely rich people in suits gathered round a conference table at this very moment.
"Once these measures are in place, we will have even more money than ever, and all out of consumers pockets!"
(Evil laughs echo through conference room)
"Right, any other way we can get even more material gain?"
"We could place a feature in VCRs that put on EXTRA commercials at random times, interrupting the programme. Then we take a cut of the fee paid by the advertiser to the TV network."
"Excellent idea, Ponsenby-Smythe! I'll get on the phone to the boss. He will be pleased! All day we just think of more and more ways of screwing the customers over, and at minimal inconvenience to us corporate types!"
(shudder)
Stavros