If you know enough about it, are concerned, and can demonstrate some way that the average Joe might be affected (sparing *all* ideology and pushing real examples), it might be worth spreading yourself around to local news outlets for a consumer advocacy or technology report.
Barring that, you might at least influence a few more folks by hitting the opinion pages.
It might only be a small ripple, but at least it's a bit better than a personal boycott.
"Burger Time" is not a genre of game, such as an FPS or the like. A clone with a character stomping some other multilevel object together might be defensible, but a clone with the same concept, similar graphics and storyline, and the same mechanics would probably be found infringing if tested in court. Whether anyone cares, or will ever do that, is up for grabs.
As for linking, that's a technical issue. Fudd's, ethically, shouldn't have linked to his site without crediting, but, fundamentally, it's up to the site owner to determine, fundamentally, what response their server gives when asked for a file. This siteowner did that, and it seems to have worked for him.
Taking is not always stealing. If I ask Port 80, and Port 80 says "yes", then there's nothing stealing about it. Without that assumption, the Internet would be mostly useless.
As it stands, it's a matter of courtesy (of the linker) and technological controls (of the linked).
Well, maybe that particular version of creationism is incompatible, but that doesn't rule out all intelligent design.
The basic theory of an intelligent creator could include everything from the strict Biblical idea, hoaxes from God, to time-traveling scientists from the future, to well, it's endless. Depending on what the truth really is, it could include or disprove common scientific holdings. (Personally, my money's on science.)
The thing is that most science comes down to one thing. Where we came from. If you replace that you have to throw away, physics, chemistry, astronomy, cosmology, geology, biology, anthropology...
How's that?
If physics, chemistry, etc. still all work as expected, how is origin so critical?
It must be said that of all the advances that the Internet has brought society, few can compare to the easy access to information that allows anyone to generalize their own particular point by finding a perfectly matched wackjob, out-of-context quote, or poorly-made comment to prove that the particular opposite group are, to a one, a horde of raging assholes.
So, here's the score: The Christian (nee, the entire!) right thinks the disaster's retribution from God. Everyone left of the aisle is using it to advance wackjob theories. The Islamic religion agrees that it's just peachy. 'Bout right?
(So, what's the line from the Flying Spaghetti people?)
I do agree that he seems to not realize you can selectively create a CC license that would certainly allow you to recieve revenue for your work, or place controls on how the content is used. But you didn't have to be a dick about it.
I do realize that there are the "noncommercial" class of licenses out there, and those would work just as well in a lot of cases. I should have mentioned, though, that I really can't stand those licenses, because they're so poorly worded as to prohibit things like trying to make less than enough money to run your server. In my defense, I had just posted that position in a thread up the line some way, so I was still thinking in those terms when I wrote this.
Well, the overzealous shouting is more exasperation than anything else.
The weird grammar comes from the fact that I take about 3 or 4 "edit passes", and, really, my comments tend to grow from the middle more often than the standard top-to-bottom writing. Of course, when I'm sleepy or distracted, I'll miss parts, or only half-delete what I meant to change.
You forgot the fact that there are infinite copies of those carrots. (Me? Of all people? Pulling the "Copyright isn't theft" card?) You, Safeway, the lunchless, and Bob down the street all have the same chance to use or profit from the "carrots".
When you a relatively loose free license, the content becomes, in essence, a static resource, no longer your controlled expression. If a licensor can't handle that fact, which is a valid position, then they should really think twice about approaching free licenses. The warm fuzzy feeling is just so much better when you're actually putting something on the line.
I lost most of my respect for them when I saw the portion of the Director EULA saying that you had to license and prominently use their logo ("Made with Macromedia") to anything you made and distributed as a standalone. Although, yes, I'm using their "runner" code to make presentations, shouldn't that right really be included in the gigantic price tag I would pay to buy presentation-making software?
Macromedia: Get over yourself. You're good, but not that good.
Of course, maybe this will all change when Adobe buys them out.
I see it as more a matter of this, the free licensing allows wider penetration of the creative work. The more that people embrace the work, and the other work of the artist in question the greater the chances for the artist to succeed with their art.
Bingo.
Eternal copyright is only really backed by the fear that whatever you're copyrighting is THE ONLY SALABLE THING YOU WILL EVER CREATE! Copyright is used to level the playing field between physical and idea-based economies. Just as physical objects crumble and deplete, so must copyrights.
However, the trouble is that some commercial entity will inevitably pick up the artist's work and use it for making money, exploiting the fact that the work is not protected by copyright. Surely an artist who donates his work to the public without any expectation of compensation does not intend for someone else to profit off of his work.
Scenerio 1: No open license 1.) You create something that you don't intend to profit (monetarily) from. 2.) You don't license it. 3.) You fail to profit.
Scenerio 2: Open license 1.) You create something that you don't intend to profit (monetarily) from. 2.) You license it with an open license. People around the world use it for their various projects. One of these projects is commercial. Someone with the ability to leverage the resource you provided takes the opportunity and profits from it. 3A.) You fail to profit.
Outcome: Both scenerios 1 and 2 appear to have the same outcome, which is to be expected as per step 1. You do not profit.
Conclusion Since, in both cases, you were unable to create direct profit through your own actions. Why should you be owed in the second scenerio by those who have done well by their own profitable abilities?
They just seem to be approaching the issue with tunnel vision. There's no realization that an artist does is not forced to put EVERYTHING THEY MAKE under CC after they first sip the Kool-Aid. Granted, some zealots might indeed say "CC everything!", and these could be the people D&O are counterpointing. I would call those zealots just as blind as the "CC nothing!" crowd.
Creative Commons, just like any licensing scheme, is something you should actually THINK about before doing it. Yes, there are cons, in that you give up editorial control and a fair chunk of revenue generation, but there are also pros, in that you are promoting and perpetuating the open exchange of source material which you yourself can draw off.
Really, the problems these have are only applicable to licensors who don't think first before they sign the dotted line.
If there's something that you can't bear to have recontextualized, DON'T CC IT! If there's something that you want control over, DON'T CC IT! If you think it'll lose you money, and you don't want that, DON'T CC IT!
Actually, it reminds me of a rant by a Podcaster I once subscribed to (it was a while ago, I forget who). He was going on and on about how it was unfair that his CC content was getting slice-and-diced, and put into other shows (which his license permitted). From what I can understand, this person only seemed to think of CC as a way to generate some street cred, and possibly to get some bandwidth offload.
Really, all I can say to these folks is: THINK FIRST! CC is a license, a legal document which gives up your rights. This may be good for you, or bad for you, but don't complain when the terms you put down work like they're supposed to.
Still, though, unless you had a remix license (prohibiting redistributing full unaltered copies), downloaders could do something akin to a "fork", offering (re-licensing, basically) the content under acceptable terms from their own source. The license is attached to the content, not the distribution point.
OTOH, robust networks and a "shrinking world" might mean that some of the needs for artificial intelligence, especially in commercial relations, can be better filled by just getting willing "actual intelligents" to do the work. The perv-harvesting to defeat Captchas is one good example of this.
Of course, AI will still have its place where it's coupled with speedy and accurate computation, but things like highly advanced intelligent agents and the like might end up by the wayside.
Slashdot Mirror
If you know enough about it, are concerned, and can demonstrate some way that the average Joe might be affected (sparing *all* ideology and pushing real examples), it might be worth spreading yourself around to local news outlets for a consumer advocacy or technology report.
Barring that, you might at least influence a few more folks by hitting the opinion pages.
It might only be a small ripple, but at least it's a bit better than a personal boycott.
The package explicitly stated "No refills," so I just figured, "Fair enough, I'll just buy my own."
You know, I could see a Firefox/Mozilla plugin or Greasemonkey script to determine that. Tooltips telling a "Goatse Probability Rating".
I don't think it would be too hard to compare any given image to one particular image.
Wow. You're amazingly incorrect, I'm certain.
"Burger Time" is not a genre of game, such as an FPS or the like. A clone with a character stomping some other multilevel object together might be defensible, but a clone with the same concept, similar graphics and storyline, and the same mechanics would probably be found infringing if tested in court. Whether anyone cares, or will ever do that, is up for grabs.
As for linking, that's a technical issue. Fudd's, ethically, shouldn't have linked to his site without crediting, but, fundamentally, it's up to the site owner to determine, fundamentally, what response their server gives when asked for a file. This siteowner did that, and it seems to have worked for him.
Taking is not always stealing. If I ask Port 80, and Port 80 says "yes", then there's nothing stealing about it. Without that assumption, the Internet would be mostly useless.
As it stands, it's a matter of courtesy (of the linker) and technological controls (of the linked).
Well, maybe that particular version of creationism is incompatible, but that doesn't rule out all intelligent design.
The basic theory of an intelligent creator could include everything from the strict Biblical idea, hoaxes from God, to time-traveling scientists from the future, to well, it's endless. Depending on what the truth really is, it could include or disprove common scientific holdings. (Personally, my money's on science.)
Be sure to check the context, snark, and sarcasm.
The thing is that most science comes down to one thing. Where we came from. If you replace that you have to throw away, physics, chemistry, astronomy, cosmology, geology, biology, anthropology...
How's that?
If physics, chemistry, etc. still all work as expected, how is origin so critical?
Ahh, yes.
It must be said that of all the advances that the Internet has brought society, few can compare to the easy access to information that allows anyone to generalize their own particular point by finding a perfectly matched wackjob, out-of-context quote, or poorly-made comment to prove that the particular opposite group are, to a one, a horde of raging assholes.
So, here's the score: The Christian (nee, the entire!) right thinks the disaster's retribution from God. Everyone left of the aisle is using it to advance wackjob theories. The Islamic religion agrees that it's just peachy. 'Bout right?
(So, what's the line from the Flying Spaghetti people?)
Yes, but I've found that, even in that case, renaming "tar" to "zip" gives zip a comparable compression ratio, and even nearly identical files.
"Herr Bushenführer?"
Did it categorize by metadata, though?
(Although, I suppose "filename" is metadata.)
I'd say print it to acid-free paper, multiple copies in separate places, and hope for the best, like Cassiodorus.
How about that, with alternating lines of text and CODE128 (or similar) barcode to make it more easily machine-readable.
Underground bunkers with trailer decoys over the top should buy 'em some time.
A laden or unladen Cat-5e hurricane?
I do agree that he seems to not realize you can selectively create a CC license that would certainly allow you to recieve revenue for your work, or place controls on how the content is used. But you didn't have to be a dick about it.
I do realize that there are the "noncommercial" class of licenses out there, and those would work just as well in a lot of cases. I should have mentioned, though, that I really can't stand those licenses, because they're so poorly worded as to prohibit things like trying to make less than enough money to run your server. In my defense, I had just posted that position in a thread up the line some way, so I was still thinking in those terms when I wrote this.
Well, the overzealous shouting is more exasperation than anything else.
The weird grammar comes from the fact that I take about 3 or 4 "edit passes", and, really, my comments tend to grow from the middle more often than the standard top-to-bottom writing. Of course, when I'm sleepy or distracted, I'll miss parts, or only half-delete what I meant to change.
You forgot the fact that there are infinite copies of those carrots. (Me? Of all people? Pulling the "Copyright isn't theft" card?) You, Safeway, the lunchless, and Bob down the street all have the same chance to use or profit from the "carrots".
When you a relatively loose free license, the content becomes, in essence, a static resource, no longer your controlled expression. If a licensor can't handle that fact, which is a valid position, then they should really think twice about approaching free licenses. The warm fuzzy feeling is just so much better when you're actually putting something on the line.
Macromedia? Opressive? No!
I lost most of my respect for them when I saw the portion of the Director EULA saying that you had to license and prominently use their logo ("Made with Macromedia") to anything you made and distributed as a standalone. Although, yes, I'm using their "runner" code to make presentations, shouldn't that right really be included in the gigantic price tag I would pay to buy presentation-making software?
Macromedia: Get over yourself. You're good, but not that good.
Of course, maybe this will all change when Adobe buys them out.
I see it as more a matter of this, the free licensing allows wider penetration of the creative work. The more that people embrace the work, and the other work of the artist in question the greater the chances for the artist to succeed with their art.
Bingo.
Eternal copyright is only really backed by the fear that whatever you're copyrighting is THE ONLY SALABLE THING YOU WILL EVER CREATE! Copyright is used to level the playing field between physical and idea-based economies. Just as physical objects crumble and deplete, so must copyrights.
However, the trouble is that some commercial entity will inevitably pick up the artist's work and use it for making money, exploiting the fact that the work is not protected by copyright. Surely an artist who donates his work to the public without any expectation of compensation does not intend for someone else to profit off of his work.
Scenerio 1: No open license
1.) You create something that you don't intend to profit (monetarily) from.
2.) You don't license it.
3.) You fail to profit.
Scenerio 2: Open license
1.) You create something that you don't intend to profit (monetarily) from.
2.) You license it with an open license. People around the world use it for their various projects. One of these projects is commercial. Someone with the ability to leverage the resource you provided takes the opportunity and profits from it.
3A.) You fail to profit.
Outcome:
Both scenerios 1 and 2 appear to have the same outcome, which is to be expected as per step 1. You do not profit.
Conclusion
Since, in both cases, you were unable to create direct profit through your own actions. Why should you be owed in the second scenerio by those who have done well by their own profitable abilities?
Is this an attack? The only thing nearly approximating a "thesis statement" I can find is:
A dramatic update on Professor Lawrence Lessig's other court case written by his friend John Heilemann appears in New York Metro magazine this week.
Which may work for Lessig Watch Weekly, but doesn't really explain how it made the pages of The Reg.
(and, yes, this is an editorial attack on the article's author)
They just seem to be approaching the issue with tunnel vision. There's no realization that an artist does is not forced to put EVERYTHING THEY MAKE under CC after they first sip the Kool-Aid. Granted, some zealots might indeed say "CC everything!", and these could be the people D&O are counterpointing. I would call those zealots just as blind as the "CC nothing!" crowd.
Creative Commons, just like any licensing scheme, is something you should actually THINK about before doing it. Yes, there are cons, in that you give up editorial control and a fair chunk of revenue generation, but there are also pros, in that you are promoting and perpetuating the open exchange of source material which you yourself can draw off.
Really, the problems these have are only applicable to licensors who don't think first before they sign the dotted line.
If there's something that you can't bear to have recontextualized, DON'T CC IT! If there's something that you want control over, DON'T CC IT! If you think it'll lose you money, and you don't want that, DON'T CC IT!
Actually, it reminds me of a rant by a Podcaster I once subscribed to (it was a while ago, I forget who). He was going on and on about how it was unfair that his CC content was getting slice-and-diced, and put into other shows (which his license permitted). From what I can understand, this person only seemed to think of CC as a way to generate some street cred, and possibly to get some bandwidth offload.
Really, all I can say to these folks is: THINK FIRST! CC is a license, a legal document which gives up your rights. This may be good for you, or bad for you, but don't complain when the terms you put down work like they're supposed to.
Still, though, unless you had a remix license (prohibiting redistributing full unaltered copies), downloaders could do something akin to a "fork", offering (re-licensing, basically) the content under acceptable terms from their own source. The license is attached to the content, not the distribution point.
OTOH, robust networks and a "shrinking world" might mean that some of the needs for artificial intelligence, especially in commercial relations, can be better filled by just getting willing "actual intelligents" to do the work. The perv-harvesting to defeat Captchas is one good example of this.
Of course, AI will still have its place where it's coupled with speedy and accurate computation, but things like highly advanced intelligent agents and the like might end up by the wayside.