Elcomsoft is a huge victory, but unless my dreams control juries, it is not my victory. This was not my case. On the other hand, if my dreams actually do control juries, then...
I'm sorry I missed this earlier, but I wasn't near a machine today.
I would have thought this the easiest of arguments to make -- here of all places. I'm not making any claims about why Canada and Korea are ahead of the U.S. I'm not making arguments in favor of any regulation. I'm not saying which -- between copyright or cable companies, or between telcoms and cable -- is more responsible for the slowness of broadband. Indeed, I've killed plenty of trees arguing that cable companies and telcoms both are a key part of the problem.
All I'm saying here is that if you lighten-up on the copyright-control-freakdom, more content would flow. How can that be a controversial argument among people who have watched the copyright-control-freaks kill-off whole sectors of the net? Or has Slashdot too been captured by the RIAA?
There's a nice article about the conflicting statistics relating to guns here.
If "childhood" is under 21, then the number is 12 a day.
But who cares? What possible relevance could it have to the argument. Even if it is one a day, the point is still true: Guns kill more people every day than Dimitry's code ever will. So why is the gov't so obsessed with code?
true enough, whatever I wannabe. but nothing hangs on end-to-end always being "good enough." sometimes it isn't good enough. the only point I've been pushing is that as with any value, we should compromise as little as possible when compromise is necessary. e.g., different QoS systems are differently end-to-end compatible. That should give us a basis to choose among them.
more fundamentally, however, I completely agree that we can achieve the values of end-to-end without there being, technically, an end-to-end network. The telephone network wasn't end-to-end, but with careful common carrier like regulation, it was as good as if it was.
yea, sorry. I don't mean that there are no people in the slashdot circle who are active. obviously, some of the most important stuff has been done by the activists from rms to esr to eff. but I was speaking about the community. If this community did something as a community, it would have an effect.
There's actually a good amount of work that's been done distinguishing between IP as a "property" right and IP protected by a "liability" rule. A property right means you must negotiate with me before you can use it; a liability rule says you must pay me if you use it. I'm a strong supporter of liability rules protecting IP in some contexts (e.g., for online music, I favor a compulsory licensing right, which means you can take it but you must pay a fixed rate if you do), and also with some patents. But if we had a relatively short and narrow protection, I don't think we would need to adopt the liability rule in all cases.
To think out of the box in this world would be to recognize that the world is not divided into valenti-ism or its opposite -- that there is a middle ground that has benefits.
I'm sorry for the brevity of this response but I've got to go teach lawyer larvae how to read contracts, but: I don't believe this e2e system has imposed social costs, and I don't believe the.com implosion is because of the e2e commons. This is a commons which produced a comedy, not tragedy (see Carol Rose, The Comedy of the Commons) and imho the.com bust is a product of compromising the commons. It wasn't broken, but they fixed it.
"all it takes is time and money" ?!? True enough. All it takes is this. But is El_Che Bill Gates? What's the matter with you? "All it takes" is all the restraint in the world.
I'm not misinformed about the capabilities enabled on my own book. I'm not saying Adobe is restricting your right to "read aloud" the book; I'm saying my published disabled the capability to "read aloud" my book. (And if you try to evade that limitation, watch out for the DMCA prosecution).
I'm making a very specific claim about a "commons": My book argues that the end-to-end archicture of the original net (e2e as in Saltzer/Clark/Reed's end2end, not AT&T's) created an "innovation commons." Formally, it is a resource left open for anyone to use; formally, no one had the right to limit it. I don't see any reason to compromise on that. None of the Hardin reasons apply; no other good reason has been proposed.
glad you asked (and it's not Dr., just Lessig): I've answered it in your other post. But point is: you're right. Here is the core problem: a concentration of wildly overextended IP rights.
Re:Better jurisprudence, not fewer laws
on
The Future of Ideas
·
· Score: 2, Informative
this is rightly the core of the problem. the American constitution gives congress the power to grant copyrights to "Authors"; the framers were anti-publisher. Our problem over the years is we've not resisted the tendency to encourage assignment of copyrights, such that highly concentrated holders (hoarders) of IP get to veto the future.
this is completely right. unless techies do something, nothing will happen. I've been flinging myself everywhere every week to deliver exactly this message to techies wherever I can. but the pathetic and honest truth is that you are all captured by this apoliticalism bovinity. you think it is a virtue if you let DC screw you, and you do nothing to resist it. this will be the sad story they (we) tell years from now: coders built Eden, and slept while DC took it away.
Re:Yes, but does anyone care enough to do anything
on
The Future of Ideas
·
· Score: 2, Funny
hey, I'm a twerpy looking Stanford lawyer, not a twerpy looking Harvard lawyer.
The book is motivated by a desire to respond to a mistaken inference drawn from Hardin's work. Hardin was talking about (what economists call) rivalous goods -- goods, like apples, where if you consume it, I can't. Therein is the tragedy. But with ideas (and culture generally), your use of my idea doesn't make it any less possible for me to use the idea.
I disagree with this. Just as freedom for humans (when people we no longer property) came with the birth of the free-labor movement. This battle is now about the same movement with respect to ideas: free culture, just as they freed people.
Re:If he cares so much about ideas...
on
The Future of Ideas
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Hey, but wait. I am pro-IP, where IP is the balanced set of rights that the framers of our constituiton embraced. To be anti-Valenti is not to be pro-zero protection.
Re:Newsflash--Lessig Hates IP
on
The Future of Ideas
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
lessig loves the balance between protection and freedom struck by the framers of the constitution and the first congress. only valenti-types can't distinguish between that and "hating IP." The beauty of the binary world notwithstanding, there is a position between perfect control of IP (Valenti-ism) and zero protection for IP (not my position).
gets about as bad as it can get, but these are the realities of dealing with publishers. Check out the ebook -- publisher would not allow the book to be "read aloud." The absurdity is astounding.
Re:history parallels, and a new war
on
The Future of Ideas
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
nice point. think about the "free labor" movement that was behind the abolition of slavery and more. It didn't take a bunch of slogans like "as in free speech, not free beer" to get people to understand that free labor was about freedom, not price.
Yea, I don't get what Sterling could mean by this. I've never worked for DOJ. But he is right that I write about how the telecoms, cable, and the music industry are trying to get a "stifling hammerlock on the culture industry." Indeed, on how they already have -- as we pathetically do nothing about it. Great read, though (Sterling's; mine's too depressing).
Again, excuse me Mr. Anonymous, but it is you, not me, who fails to research what you say. FP forbids extensive foot noting, but the article is based on a book which is chock full of research and authority. If you actually looked at that, and what I actually said, you may well say I'm wrong, but I don't see how I'm "flippant." Also, your claims about me being "brought into cases by Scalia" are just false. Can you cite one example from fact?
If you want to remain anonymous to "analyz[e] the message," then read the message.
Mr. Anonymous has made some fairly basic errors in this.
First, as another commentator has noted, I never say, nor imply, that commons are unregulated. In fact I say the opposite.
Second, I of course don't say patent law is a US creation (and so what if it were?). My criticism was of the expansion in US patent law. Anyone who can look at the patent practice before State Street Bank (which Mr. Anonymous suggests I implicitly "site" but which I don't really implicitly do anything with) and after and say that nothing has changed must be looking on the wrong page.
Mr. Anonymous excercises an important and valuable right in his mistaken rant. But where I come from, only a coward attacks someone powerless while wearing a mask.
Slashdot Mirror
Elcomsoft is a huge victory, but unless my dreams control juries, it is not my victory. This was not my case. On the other hand, if my dreams actually do control juries, then ...
I'm sorry I missed this earlier, but I wasn't near a machine today.
I would have thought this the easiest of arguments to make -- here of all places. I'm not making any claims about why Canada and Korea are ahead of the U.S. I'm not making arguments in favor of any regulation. I'm not saying which -- between copyright or cable companies, or between telcoms and cable -- is more responsible for the slowness of broadband. Indeed, I've killed plenty of trees arguing that cable companies and telcoms both are a key part of the problem.
All I'm saying here is that if you lighten-up on the copyright-control-freakdom, more content would flow. How can that be a controversial argument among people who have watched the copyright-control-freaks kill-off whole sectors of the net? Or has Slashdot too been captured by the RIAA?
There's a nice article about the conflicting statistics relating to guns here.
If "childhood" is under 21, then the number is 12 a day.
But who cares? What possible relevance could it have to the argument. Even if it is one a day, the point is still true: Guns kill more people every day than Dimitry's code ever will. So why is the gov't so obsessed with code?
true enough, whatever I wannabe. but nothing hangs on end-to-end always being "good enough." sometimes it isn't good enough. the only point I've been pushing is that as with any value, we should compromise as little as possible when compromise is necessary. e.g., different QoS systems are differently end-to-end compatible. That should give us a basis to choose among them.
more fundamentally, however, I completely agree that we can achieve the values of end-to-end without there being, technically, an end-to-end network. The telephone network wasn't end-to-end, but with careful common carrier like regulation, it was as good as if it was.
yea, sorry. I don't mean that there are no people in the slashdot circle who are active. obviously, some of the most important stuff has been done by the activists from rms to esr to eff. but I was speaking about the community. If this community did something as a community, it would have an effect.
very cool, Gigsvt. thanks.
There's actually a good amount of work that's been done distinguishing between IP as a "property" right and IP protected by a "liability" rule. A property right means you must negotiate with me before you can use it; a liability rule says you must pay me if you use it. I'm a strong supporter of liability rules protecting IP in some contexts (e.g., for online music, I favor a compulsory licensing right, which means you can take it but you must pay a fixed rate if you do), and also with some patents. But if we had a relatively short and narrow protection, I don't think we would need to adopt the liability rule in all cases.
To think out of the box in this world would be to recognize that the world is not divided into valenti-ism or its opposite -- that there is a middle ground that has benefits.
I'm sorry for the brevity of this response but I've got to go teach lawyer larvae how to read contracts, but: I don't believe this e2e system has imposed social costs, and I don't believe the .com implosion is because of the e2e commons. This is a commons which produced a comedy, not tragedy (see Carol Rose, The Comedy of the Commons) and imho the .com bust is a product of compromising the commons. It wasn't broken, but they fixed it.
"all it takes is time and money" ?!? True enough. All it takes is this. But is El_Che Bill Gates? What's the matter with you? "All it takes" is all the restraint in the world.
I'm not misinformed about the capabilities enabled on my own book. I'm not saying Adobe is restricting your right to "read aloud" the book; I'm saying my published disabled the capability to "read aloud" my book. (And if you try to evade that limitation, watch out for the DMCA prosecution).
I'm making a very specific claim about a "commons": My book argues that the end-to-end archicture of the original net (e2e as in Saltzer/Clark/Reed's end2end, not AT&T's) created an "innovation commons." Formally, it is a resource left open for anyone to use; formally, no one had the right to limit it. I don't see any reason to compromise on that. None of the Hardin reasons apply; no other good reason has been proposed.
glad you asked (and it's not Dr., just Lessig): I've answered it in your other post. But point is: you're right. Here is the core problem: a concentration of wildly overextended IP rights.
this is rightly the core of the problem. the American constitution gives congress the power to grant copyrights to "Authors"; the framers were anti-publisher. Our problem over the years is we've not resisted the tendency to encourage assignment of copyrights, such that highly concentrated holders (hoarders) of IP get to veto the future.
this is completely right. unless techies do something, nothing will happen. I've been flinging myself everywhere every week to deliver exactly this message to techies wherever I can. but the pathetic and honest truth is that you are all captured by this apoliticalism bovinity. you think it is a virtue if you let DC screw you, and you do nothing to resist it. this will be the sad story they (we) tell years from now: coders built Eden, and slept while DC took it away.
hey, I'm a twerpy looking Stanford lawyer, not a twerpy looking Harvard lawyer.
now I am pissed.
The book is motivated by a desire to respond to a mistaken inference drawn from Hardin's work. Hardin was talking about (what economists call) rivalous goods -- goods, like apples, where if you consume it, I can't. Therein is the tragedy. But with ideas (and culture generally), your use of my idea doesn't make it any less possible for me to use the idea.
I disagree with this. Just as freedom for humans (when people we no longer property) came with the birth of the free-labor movement. This battle is now about the same movement with respect to ideas: free culture, just as they freed people.
Hey, but wait. I am pro-IP, where IP is the balanced set of rights that the framers of our constituiton embraced. To be anti-Valenti is not to be pro-zero protection.
lessig loves the balance between protection and freedom struck by the framers of the constitution and the first congress. only valenti-types can't distinguish between that and "hating IP." The beauty of the binary world notwithstanding, there is a position between perfect control of IP (Valenti-ism) and zero protection for IP (not my position).
considering who I am? zippo leeway. I publish as much as I can for free and online. but to enter stores, etc., publishers' rules rule.
gets about as bad as it can get, but these are the realities of dealing with publishers. Check out the ebook -- publisher would not allow the book to be "read aloud." The absurdity is astounding.
nice point. think about the "free labor" movement that was behind the abolition of slavery and more. It didn't take a bunch of slogans like "as in free speech, not free beer" to get people to understand that free labor was about freedom, not price.
We need a "free culture" movement.
Yea, I don't get what Sterling could mean by this. I've never worked for DOJ. But he is right that I write about how the telecoms, cable, and the music industry are trying to get a "stifling hammerlock on the culture industry." Indeed, on how they already have -- as we pathetically do nothing about it. Great read, though (Sterling's; mine's too depressing).
Again, excuse me Mr. Anonymous, but it is you, not me, who fails to research what you say. FP forbids extensive foot noting, but the article is based on a book which is chock full of research and authority. If you actually looked at that, and what I actually said, you may well say I'm wrong, but I don't see how I'm "flippant." Also, your claims about me being "brought into cases by Scalia" are just false. Can you cite one example from fact?
If you want to remain anonymous to "analyz[e] the message," then read the message.
Mr. Anonymous has made some fairly basic errors in this.
First, as another commentator has noted, I never say, nor imply, that commons are unregulated. In fact I say the opposite.
Second, I of course don't say patent law is a US creation (and so what if it were?). My criticism was of the expansion in US patent law. Anyone who can look at the patent practice before State Street Bank (which Mr. Anonymous suggests I implicitly "site" but which I don't really implicitly do anything with) and after and say that nothing has changed must be looking on the wrong page.
Mr. Anonymous excercises an important and valuable right in his mistaken rant. But where I come from, only a coward attacks someone powerless while wearing a mask.