"the market will know soon enough" How? Its illegal to talk about how it doesnt work, because you are defeating their encryption in order to prove that it doesnt work.
"The people that whittle away your fair use rights are the people that think they're the ones with the power, take whatever they want, and fail to understand that the music industry isn't just going to sit there and let them pick its bones."
I don't understand, the music industry is going to pick it's own bones?:)
Seriously, downloading music is only stealing because of an artificial creation of law. They don't have any inalienable rights to control what you do with recordings, it is given by law. Calling it "stealing" is subverting the language to fit your viewpoint, it implies there is more in common with downloading songs and shoplifting other than both being illegal. It is copyright infringement, nothing more. It is illegal, but it doesn't always have to be, nor was it always so. For example, there is new economic theory that proposes copyright isn't necessary and sometimes harmful to artists and innovators. If this was accepted as common knowledge, copyright would eventually cease to exist. I'm not saying this is going to happen, but pointing out that copyright isn't some inalienable right. It isnt in the same category as the right to own property.
Its also dubious about DRM not being dangerous. Regardless of who owns the copyright, what shape will our society be in when all art is locked up, and only accessed by those with the money? How much of history is taught out of copyrighted books? If these are all DRM, what happens when the DRM provider goes out of business on a series of books? Remember, it is illegal to circumvent the DRM as well. How many people have to go untaught or uncultured before it is considered harmful?
I can see this bill doing good, as a baby step. Basically it works like this, you increase the public domain with this bill, right? More recent works can be public domain, and people can enjoy the benefit of a larger base of works in the commons.
Suddenly, the public can remember how copyright was originally supposed to work, and they can actually enjoy some of the public domain work again. A decade passes, and the public begins to realize that the Disney corporation and thier ilk don't have an automatic right to make money off thier work from 100 years ago. They can see what good public domain can do to a work, and will begin to want change.
This might sound unrealistic, but think about it, how many interesting and useful things like Project Gutenberg will be created and flourish if the number of works in public domain increases? If there are several "killer apps" for the public domain, showing what the internet can do to information distribution, suddenly everyone will want thier stuff in the public domain.
An analogy would be open-source. The "killer apps" are things like Linux, Apache and Sendmail. They haven't changed copyright law, but what they are doing is making several businesses think about giving thier code away under the GPL, which is similar to the public domain in this analogy. This is helping to increase the amount of code being shared, and helping people understand the change that the internet has brought to intellectual property.
All we need are a few "killer apps", profitable and popular works of art that are either given away freely or where the copyrights have expired, in order to start changing peoples minds.
But thats the point, if you want your Kia, you can have it. No problem, but why try to turn all the Nascar vehicles into Kia's? Let them be what they are, they serve a niche and are fine.
Same with PC gaming, it serves a niche, an important one, IMO, and people shouldn't try to make it into a very expensive console. If you want a console, go buy one.
No its not, GPL code is held under copyright, the redistribution of that code is the only thing the GPL applies to. Copyright doesn't apply to public data, therefore you can't hold someone in violation of copyright for redistributing public data. However, with GPL code, you can say someone is violating your copyright if they violate the GPL, because if they violate the GPL then they have no right to redistribute the material.
"Or to just put it plainly, as my friend (who from time to time would write X windows gadgets) would say, it's only about twice as hard as managing the video memory yourself."
Yeah, and I bet hes thinking about supporting themes, handling the windowing of all the applications with relation to your own, handling resolution changes, all the video card drivers, bit depth changes, not to mention changing theme or window manager while running. Oh wait, that means youd just be writing XFree + Window Manager + Gnome all over again. But Im sure if you write it yourself, it must be better.
You know why I think most people bitch about X11 so much? Cause they can't see an open source implementation of Windows, or the OSX GUI, or any other major GUI. It may have it's fair share of problems, but I doub't anyone could write something better every time they want a GUI in "Random App 22"
"how should a copyright owner go about preventing their information from being spread all over the world and enjoyed without their being recompensed?"
The original intent of copyright is to get the information spread all over the world and enjoyed. Being recompensed is just incentive to that end, not the end in itself. The fact that weve lost sight of that is a major part of the problem. The question you should be asking is not "How can I keep people from enjoying my work without giving me money?" but "How can I make money while people enjoy my work?"
"This article's title is like naming your Cisco Router "The Auswitch""
Id have to disagree, the article title is different from your example because I found your example funny.:) The article isn't really all that funny, but "The Auswitch"? Thats gold. Maybe Im a sucker for bad puns.
Simple. If Bush gets voted out, and all the opinion polls say "He was voted out for warmongering, endangering freedom, and invading privacy" what do you think the next President will do? The exact opposite of Bush, just to stay in office. Theres a reason we vote, and its not to get men of moral integrity into the office, its to scare the fuck ups already there into doing what we want.
The thing is the article about Alturism in Open Source movement argues the opposite. It is actually harder to develop free software when the economy is good, because some company will pay you 80 bazillion dollars to do the same thing. When the economy isn't that hot, theres not much money to be lost, so why not give it away? Thats why the author of the article states the development of Linux and Gnome has shifted to Europe from the US, because of the difference of the two economies.
" And who decides what's "fair". Because I sure as hell know that the customer's idea of fair is a lot less than what the company's idea is."
The market decides. Hes not saying go tell Sony, "youre going to charge this, and no more!" Hes saying that Sony should give thier customers what they want, while still getting what Sony wants. Theres a balance and its called market price. The problem here is only Sony is getting what they want, the customers are getting screwed.
From the article (now up, btw) "(Rosen is half of a formidable power couple in the capital; her life partner, Elizabeth Birch, runs the Human Rights Campaign, the influential gay rights group.)"
NOOO! Must get hot poker to burn that image out of my brain. This may ruin Lesbians forever!
Amen. That is the one major difference, in Windows, you feel like it's working, even if it isn't. In Linux, it rarely feels like it's working, even if it is.
Im confused, I thought thier Linux Drivers were free? Theyre part of the Debian distro, and if they weren't free, we couldn't just apt-get them, right? I can go to thier site and download them free as well.
I agree completely on the fun part. I write a project called WebVCR+ and the main reason that I did it was for fun. I watch way more TV now that I can just have it on my hard drive where I can skip commercials. I also like the fact that I can record it any way I want, and schedule favorites. I know TiVo can do all these features, but I didnt write TiVo so its not nearly as much fun to use:)
Did you read the part about having to re-certify and stay relevant in their fields? Do you think that will weed out a fair amount of examiners who cant do thier job? Why is that not adressing the problem.
Nobody said anything about taxes. He was merely asking who made the assessment of the value of thier tuition? Cooper Union or an outside source? His point, from what I could tell, was that if Cooper Union was setting thier tuition at that, but never charging it, then it was meaningless. That is where he came up with his high school example (which, btw, you assumed was public), if nobody is charged to be admitted, you can pretend you charge whatever you want and then, out of the goodness of your heart, waive it for everybody.
I really dont know where the taxes thing came from, try to calm down next time, please.
Slashdot Mirror
"the market will know soon enough"
How? Its illegal to talk about how it doesnt work, because you are defeating their encryption in order to prove that it doesnt work.
No, Algorithms were around before Computers. Algorithms are Mathematics. Computer Science studies Algorithms in discrete systems.
"The people that whittle away your fair use rights are the people that think they're the ones with the power, take whatever they want, and fail to understand that the music industry isn't just going to sit there and let them pick its bones."
:)
I don't understand, the music industry is going to pick it's own bones?
Seriously, downloading music is only stealing because of an artificial creation of law. They don't have any inalienable rights to control what you do with recordings, it is given by law. Calling it "stealing" is subverting the language to fit your viewpoint, it implies there is more in common with downloading songs and shoplifting other than both being illegal. It is copyright infringement, nothing more. It is illegal, but it doesn't always have to be, nor was it always so. For example, there is new economic theory that proposes copyright isn't necessary and sometimes harmful to artists and innovators. If this was accepted as common knowledge, copyright would eventually cease to exist. I'm not saying this is going to happen, but pointing out that copyright isn't some inalienable right. It isnt in the same category as the right to own property.
Its also dubious about DRM not being dangerous. Regardless of who owns the copyright, what shape will our society be in when all art is locked up, and only accessed by those with the money? How much of history is taught out of copyrighted books? If these are all DRM, what happens when the DRM provider goes out of business on a series of books? Remember, it is illegal to circumvent the DRM as well. How many people have to go untaught or uncultured before it is considered harmful?
And now Ive got a beginners guide to posting like m1a1
emerge smartass
smartass --post slashdot.org
" A bit OT, isn't the argument you used for potential revenue the exact opposite of the one used by the RIAA/MPAA/BSA?"
Yes, but they are lying.
I can see this bill doing good, as a baby step. Basically it works like this, you increase the public domain with this bill, right? More recent works can be public domain, and people can enjoy the benefit of a larger base of works in the commons.
Suddenly, the public can remember how copyright was originally supposed to work, and they can actually enjoy some of the public domain work again. A decade passes, and the public begins to realize that the Disney corporation and thier ilk don't have an automatic right to make money off thier work from 100 years ago. They can see what good public domain can do to a work, and will begin to want change.
This might sound unrealistic, but think about it, how many interesting and useful things like Project Gutenberg will be created and flourish if the number of works in public domain increases? If there are several "killer apps" for the public domain, showing what the internet can do to information distribution, suddenly everyone will want thier stuff in the public domain.
An analogy would be open-source. The "killer apps" are things like Linux, Apache and Sendmail. They haven't changed copyright law, but what they are doing is making several businesses think about giving thier code away under the GPL, which is similar to the public domain in this analogy. This is helping to increase the amount of code being shared, and helping people understand the change that the internet has brought to intellectual property.
All we need are a few "killer apps", profitable and popular works of art that are either given away freely or where the copyrights have expired, in order to start changing peoples minds.
But thats the point, if you want your Kia, you can have it. No problem, but why try to turn all the Nascar vehicles into Kia's? Let them be what they are, they serve a niche and are fine.
Same with PC gaming, it serves a niche, an important one, IMO, and people shouldn't try to make it into a very expensive console. If you want a console, go buy one.
No its not, GPL code is held under copyright, the redistribution of that code is the only thing the GPL applies to. Copyright doesn't apply to public data, therefore you can't hold someone in violation of copyright for redistributing public data. However, with GPL code, you can say someone is violating your copyright if they violate the GPL, because if they violate the GPL then they have no right to redistribute the material.
"Or to just put it plainly, as my friend (who from time to time would write X windows gadgets) would say, it's only about twice as hard as managing the video memory yourself."
Yeah, and I bet hes thinking about supporting themes, handling the windowing of all the applications with relation to your own, handling resolution changes, all the video card drivers, bit depth changes, not to mention changing theme or window manager while running. Oh wait, that means youd just be writing XFree + Window Manager + Gnome all over again. But Im sure if you write it yourself, it must be better.
You know why I think most people bitch about X11 so much? Cause they can't see an open source implementation of Windows, or the OSX GUI, or any other major GUI. It may have it's fair share of problems, but I doub't anyone could write something better every time they want a GUI in "Random App 22"
The original intent of copyright is to get the information spread all over the world and enjoyed. Being recompensed is just incentive to that end, not the end in itself. The fact that weve lost sight of that is a major part of the problem. The question you should be asking is not "How can I keep people from enjoying my work without giving me money?" but "How can I make money while people enjoy my work?"
Id have to disagree, the article title is different from your example because I found your example funny.
Simple. If Bush gets voted out, and all the opinion polls say "He was voted out for warmongering, endangering freedom, and invading privacy" what do you think the next President will do? The exact opposite of Bush, just to stay in office. Theres a reason we vote, and its not to get men of moral integrity into the office, its to scare the fuck ups already there into doing what we want.
The thing is the article about Alturism in Open Source movement argues the opposite. It is actually harder to develop free software when the economy is good, because some company will pay you 80 bazillion dollars to do the same thing. When the economy isn't that hot, theres not much money to be lost, so why not give it away? Thats why the author of the article states the development of Linux and Gnome has shifted to Europe from the US, because of the difference of the two economies.
Its not a war against people, its a war against communism, people are merely collateral damage. - Sen. John McCarthy
PS. I totally made that up, flame on!
Its like that, only its a fraction of a penny and we do it a couple of million times. Whats wrong with that?
:)
BTW, I use Kaaza, just a joke
" And who decides what's "fair". Because I sure as hell know that the customer's idea of fair is a lot less than what the company's idea is."
The market decides. Hes not saying go tell Sony, "youre going to charge this, and no more!" Hes saying that Sony should give thier customers what they want, while still getting what Sony wants. Theres a balance and its called market price. The problem here is only Sony is getting what they want, the customers are getting screwed.
From the article (now up, btw)
"(Rosen is half of a formidable power couple in the capital; her life partner, Elizabeth Birch, runs the Human Rights Campaign, the influential gay rights group.)"
NOOO! Must get hot poker to burn that image out of my brain. This may ruin Lesbians forever!
In C#, "sky.isFalling() = True" is valid.
Amen. That is the one major difference, in Windows, you feel like it's working, even if it isn't. In Linux, it rarely feels like it's working, even if it is.
Im confused, I thought thier Linux Drivers were free? Theyre part of the Debian distro, and if they weren't free, we couldn't just apt-get them, right? I can go to thier site and download them free as well.
Check em out here
And you can remotely program your computer with WebVCR+ Yes this is a blatant self-plug, and I should be ashamed.
I agree completely on the fun part. I write a project called WebVCR+ and the main reason that I did it was for fun. I watch way more TV now that I can just have it on my hard drive where I can skip commercials. I also like the fact that I can record it any way I want, and schedule favorites. I know TiVo can do all these features, but I didnt write TiVo so its not nearly as much fun to use :)
Did you read the part about having to re-certify and stay relevant in their fields? Do you think that will weed out a fair amount of examiners who cant do thier job? Why is that not adressing the problem.
My bad, he said public high school. DOH.
Nobody said anything about taxes. He was merely asking who made the assessment of the value of thier tuition? Cooper Union or an outside source? His point, from what I could tell, was that if Cooper Union was setting thier tuition at that, but never charging it, then it was meaningless. That is where he came up with his high school example (which, btw, you assumed was public), if nobody is charged to be admitted, you can pretend you charge whatever you want and then, out of the goodness of your heart, waive it for everybody.
I really dont know where the taxes thing came from, try to calm down next time, please.