Just because Jeff Minter's games all look distinctly different from other games, doesn't mean they are all the same. If you check other screenshots: 1, 2, 3 you can see that the game is very different. Tempest is looking down a static 'web' while many of the screenshots seem to show travelling down some sort of tunnel network. What the game actually *is* though is still unknown.
Looking forward to seeing something a bit different.
At all times the likelihood of interference is extremely rare. I fully agree that some form of data checks will be in place, but don't agree that interference could in all cases be ignored. I don't discard my thought that interference may still be interpreted as genuine data completely though;). At the very least there may reach a point where the interference corrupts the data beyond use. And, although I believe you are correct in assuming that the majority of signals within the plane will be for sensors, in a fly-by-wire plane many of the signals will be for controlling devices - corrupting such a signal could mean the pilot is unable to control parts of the plane, if only temporarily.
I would hardly call myself biased. At home I have a wireless doorbell, digital satelite, a car with remote central locking, a pair of cordless phones, 4 mobile phones (between the three of us), a couple of cybikos, one of those X10-type TV things, a wireless PS2 controller, and I just bought a Gamecube wavebird yesterday. I used to have a targeted microwave dish for broadband (TELE2 in Reading UK - great), but in the new house I'm stuck with modem, so have no reason to install Wi-Fi on the half dozen vintage computers I tinker with (though that would be a project - can you even get wireless cards for 16-bit ISA slots? how about VESA?). I read slashdot because I am a geek, not because I am some rabid anti-technologist.
In general, mobile phones and wi-fi are safe. Safe is a qualitative term. Microsoft Windows is safe for use in an office environment, but would you consider their shrinkwrapped software safe for use in critical systems such as hospital equipment, pacemakers (Windows CE for pacemakers!), key airplane control systems, and naval vessels? When you introduce new devices into more life-critical environments you must accept that the definition of Safe for those devices must change, the critique has to be more stringent. Mobile phones are safe, but are they safe for use in Airplanes?
You are ducking the argument. Lets ignore that you are ready to discard research out of hand. You are trying to make me prove to you that mobile phones aren't safe, but have no arguments that they are. Given that the risk to life of you being wrong is far more than the risk to life if I am, I suggest that you provide something more positive in the way of argument. I agree that it is a one in a million chance that a mobile or wifi device will interfere with an airplane enough to cause a crash. But, with tens of thousands of planes flying every day, and hundreds of mobiles on each plane, a one in a million chance will occur every day. So I suggest you at least propose some positive evidence before discarding an existing safety precaution. And not some silly apochryphical story about your 4th cousin who uses mobile phones on planes all the time and has never crashed yet.
I will iterate the point for a third time, as you still seem to have missed it. It is not the strength of the signal that is a problem, it is the information content within that signal. I never mentioned anything about standing in front of a microwave - that is a completely different discussion. I should also make clear that the hacking a plane with a pda idea is very much tongue in cheek - the mention of sticky back plastic and Blue Peter badges (ok, UK centric, shoe is on the other foot now Slashdot!) can be seen as a clue.
But let me get back to the point that it is not the signal but the information in the signal.
Have you ever noticed your digital satelite TV picture during a storm. You get a perfect picture regardless of the conditions outside... up to a point. There comes a point where the interference from the storm exceeds the fault tolerance in the TV signal, and suddenly your perfect picture is a series of bright squares, fractured images, and it sounds like somebody is taking pot shots at a squealing pig. Basically, digital signals don't degrade gracefully. Compare that with an analogue signal - you rarely get a perfect image, but during severe interference you can still make out the image (ain't the human visual system great - which is why people can watch scrambled porn by squinting their eyes, allegedly).
Now if you have ever used a taxi with a CB radio you'll recognise the next point. Taxi radios remain absolutely silent until they receive a signal from their base station, when they burst into full life. Now sometimes they pop into life with a burst of static for a split second, for no apparent reason. Basically some interference tricked the CB into thinking it was receiving a signal from the base sta
Did I mention that I researched this to stop a mobile phone mast being built next to my house? Did I? I didn't want one because it would look bad, but I couldn't object on those grounds. After A bit of dirt digging I suddenly realised I didn't want one due to the health aspects. Here is some of the information I put together to help my planning objection. I have made some text bold at the end of the information that I think is directly relevant to the problems in proving ahead of time that any one particular device will be dangerous in any particular situation:
Other effects of RF Radiation
Heating alone is not the only effect of RF radiation. The pulsed microwave radiation used in mobile telephony is similar in frequency and pulse to some of the brain's own electrical activities. This means that the brain can be interfered with by even weak radiation, due to the information content of the signal. This is how critical energised equipment in aircraft, hospitals, and heart pacemakers are affected. Don't forget - you should never go near a mast if you have a pacemaker.
The signals from mobile telephony use frequencies that can be discerned by the brain, and does affect brain function: * It may cause headaches, it affects structures and systems in the brain in a way that is considered to cause headaches. * It disrupts sleep. The duration of REM sleep is shortened by exposure to radiation. This impairs the bodies nightly repair process, which will leave you more prone to illness. * It causes fits in people pre-disposed to epileptic seizures. The signals caused in the brain by particular flashing lights may be reproduced by microwave signals entering the brain directly, causing the same result. * It affects memory. Microwave radiation interferes with the hippocampal region of the brain, which is consistent with reports of memory problems. Behaviours such as hyper-activity and temper tantrums may be due to similar interference. * It may cause cancer. Disruption of sleep inhibits nocturnal secretion of Melatonin. Experiments have also shown that radiation too weak to break down DNA can remove Melatonin. Melatonin clears up free-radicals, which if left, may cause cancer. It has been shown that pulsed microwave radiation promotes the development of cancer in mice.
Research into non-thermal effects has not progressed far. It is difficult to reproduce as everybody has different brain waves, and this causes each individual to react differently to the same radiation signal. More research is necessary, but the Stewart report concludes that it may cause subtle biological effects and evidence so far justifies a precautionary approach, as advised in Article 130r of the European Treaties (Maastricht Treaty). If you consider the danger from RF radiation from masts is like having a gun, and not knowing if it is loaded or not. The precautionary approach simply means "don't put a gun against your head and pull the trigger unless you are sure it isn't loaded". This is why many countries in Europe, and the rest of the world, have a 500m exclusion zone around masts, ensuring no-one lives within the potentially dangerous area. Many county councils also have this policy, unfortunately ours does not.
The old shoebox sized cell phones probably were a big part of it, but so was all the unshielded life saving equipment the hospital used. Probably this hospital had replaced all their equipment to safer models, but remember that the existing equipment was probably sold on to a smaller hospital nearby. Please, please, follow the instructions on the signs. At the very least, in this lawsuit laden world, you don't want to be seen using a mobile phone near to some person as they watch their relative die - you may find yourself the target of a tenuous lawsuit in which you will not be able to conclusively prove that you did not contribute to their death. Expensive win or lose.
It really is a scientific principle to err on the side of safety until conclusive evidence has been provided that phone signals cannot interfere. It is known that signals can change wavelength (it's frequency people). Mobile phones are also not monitored or maintained - they can easily be broadcasting a whole range of signals. I have an old mobile that every so often empties a full charge when searching a transmitter - causing a godawful sound on the car speakers. I fly twice a week. I make sure I switch it off.
RF shielding increases weight, a premium on airplanes, so you can never wrap enough shielding around anything to guarantee that *no* signal will leak through. It is never about the strength of the signal anyhow - it is about the information *in* the signal that is the greatest risk. It is entirely possible that data transmitted from your cell phone or wifi card could be interpreted as instructions for the nav, comm, and control systems. It is *extremely* unlikely, but possible.
I actually replied to the author of The Register article when he first posted it, and see no reason why I shouldn't include that reply here:
The fact is that mobile phones cause interference all the time, the "biddy bip" is an obvious example. And yes, interference rarely affects other electronics. It's just the keyword "rarely" that gives pilots the willies. Everyone has a friend of a friend who could pick up radio on his fillings. It is altogether possible that the signal from a mobile phone or other wireless device could be picked up by another device directly or indirectly through an otherwise innocuous component. Again, this interference probably happens all the time. So why is it a problem?
It is not necessarily the strength of the signal, but the data transferred over the signal that is a problem. As it is accepted that interference does happen, it is altogether possible that a digital device can send a digital signal that is successfully interpreted as an instruction for a component of the airplane. In short, if the pilot controls the plane by computer control there is no reason why you can't do the same from the comfort of your seat in economy using just your PDA, some malformed fillings, a washing-up bottle, and some double sided sticky tape. Minor incidents probably happen all the time, a split second odd reading from a sensor, a brief hesitation of one wing, but if you were responsible for the undercarriage rising a second before the plane lands I'm sure it's not something you are likely to get a Blue Peter badge for.
Now why they can't build a wireless protocol that responds to a "be quiet, you're on a plane" signal is a different question.
A very well made point - but I have to firmly disagree. I agree that the material you are infringing should be the subject (or one of the subjects) of the parody, but I say that the Strawberry Shortcake material was the primary subject of the material. More accurately, the comic is making a statement how American McGee would (unintentionally) make a parody of Strawberry Shortcake if he were allowed to convert it to a videogame. If this picture was produced by American McGee himself, there would be no question that it is a parody of Strawberry Shortcake. In fact, it is clearly the intent to pretend that this is so, with the true nature only revealed in the small print and the context of where it was originally posted (the penny arcade site now being the only place where you definately cannot find it).
Does the fact that the comic was produced by Penny Arcade rather than American McGee make it any less of a parody of Strawberry Shortcake? I don't think so.
Is it a parody of American McGee's work? Well, I think it's that too! American McGee's work on Alice was widely acclaimed, but his work on Wizard of Oz has implied a one trick pony mentality - take a wholesome subject material (I'm talking about the _commonly_ held perception of the material) and make it dark, twisted, and add sexual elements. To choose an extremely wholesome and childlike initial subject and apply all the "trademark" McGee elements in one image just highlights the unimaginative nature of his approach. It is an intentional parody of one persons work whose work unintentionally makes a parody of others'.
I like it, but then I've been following Penny Arcade for years.
In fact, Peter Molyneux actually has initiatives to keep the bedroom coder alive. Admittedly he's supporting Jeff Minter which is a pretty safe bet (check out the the "unity" mention on the lionhead site)
A Troll? How bizarre. Could whoever did that please post to this thread and make yourself known 8)
As the original post mentions Jeff Minter and was from the "well-as-long-as-there-are-llamas dept.", a link to the llamasoft website isn't exactly off topic nor a troll. And anything Minter related *is* demo scene related - heh, check out the South Party Demo.
I highly recommend you try the Gridrunner++ game. It matches the feel of retro games with great modern graphics and sounds (and I'm not saying that just because I donated a bunch of the graphics 8) ).
At that point, only mutant camels (geeky heehaw *snort*).
It does help reason why most of his early games involved mutated animals though. I believe he now has a couple of llamas, goats, and sheep (including Flossie, "the prettiest sheep in the world"). Recent games have shown a distinct lack of mutated animals, and an increased presence of hungry sheep. He is also known as the father of VLM (Virtual Light Machines), once you have a DVD player with embedded VLM, you don't want to go back.
The guy has originality running through him like a really really spicy curry.
Seriously, the only reason why we aren't all playing games filled with mutated goats, sheep, and llamas is because the guy had such loyalty to Atari. Now he's free and back in the business, watch out for a shift in the content of games of the future. Ok BMX XXX 2 isn't going to flash you sheared sheep, but you get the idea.
Apparently there will be a big announcement before the end of January. Something wonderful is happening in casa Llamasoft. Remember, you heard it here first.
I completely agree. However, a leasehold agreement seems to fit better with me - you tend to pay upfront for a 2 year lease which you have first refusal on renewal. You can sell on the remaining term of your lease to 3rd parties at any time.
I would say a domain is a property, and should be considered the same as a highstreet store (a mall shopfront if you prefer). The "owner" of the shop has leased the property, and for all reasonable purposes can treat it as if they own it. With a bricks&mortars lease you know when you've been evicted, but when you lose your domain, the first you know of it may be when people stop coming into your store.
The agreement between you and the registrar is that they will direct people to your web site, and will continue to do so until your agreement ends or you tell them otherwise. Anything else is a breach of the agreement on their part. If a they act on a letter from a 3rd party saying "I now own this site, give it to me" then that's a breach of their agreement with you. Whether the 3rd party committed fraud is between the registrar and the 3rd party - now that's a court case I would like to see, I'm sure even judges like to see a nice farce now and then!
Sorry, I should have said Mike Batt settled his case (by paying a six figure sum). I don't know about you, but I don't have that sort of money lying around.
Music composer John Cage had an album with a track of nothing, nada, complete silence. It was called "4'33", and was four minutes thirty three seconds long.
Musician Mike Batt created an album which had a track of complete silence, lasting one minute, called "A Minute's Silence". He credited John Cage as co-writer as a "tongue-in-cheek dig" at the whole concept. John Cage's publishers then sued him.
The court case included various hijinx, where defendant/prosecutor tried to prove the compositions as different/the same by having live performances of the work. Mike Batt performed his silent work himself, while John Cage's work was performed by a musician not playing the clarinet.
Although very very silly, Mike Batt lost his case because it was obvious he knew about the prior work. But, in principle, he could have been sued even if he appeared ignorant of John Cage's work. If someone can claim copyright ownership of a stream of zeros on a CD, then there is no hope for the concept of Intellectual Property.
I'm an optimist - most likely a new DVD based format for audio *will* appear, but it is unlikely to contain DRM, and the player will have to be able to play CDs. When DVD-Recorder videos become commonplace, a DVD audio recording option will just become another feature of the home entertainment centre. I can dream can't I!!!
Feels like a slashback - but like many of you I've been following this for a while, I kept my own little list of interesting articles. Until now I've nowhere to put them, so this is as good an opportunity as any:
Thanks to the CBDTPA, nearly everything *must* embed DRM. This includes cockpit voice recorders, digital speed cameras, hearing aids, and big mouth billy bass
A review of the technologies shows that it is futile to protect CDs, (based on the assumption that new devices will more likely circumvent protection rather than enforce it)
Richard Stallman (Free Software advocate) jumps in with a cautionary tale
I'm a consultant, so this question directly affects me too.
Firstly, as the law stands, IP and copyright are very important. You can't ignore it just because you personally disagree with the law here.
Secondly, you are expected to use your experience gained from one job in subsquent employment. When you leave, you take with you all your skills and knowledge. Normally, you can't take any information away with you - no documents, no CDs, no code.
One of the senior lawyers for our company once said "The thing I fear most is a programmer who brings with him a CD full of code from prvious jobs". This immediately taints all work done, as it raises the question of whether the work is original or not. As someone else said, this can be a concern when MS open up their source.
Companies say that employees are their best asset for good reason. Not least, when they leave you can assume all your trade secrets went out the door with them. However, there are tools that your previous employer could use: (obligatory IANAL)
1. The previous employer can put a clause in your contract saying you cannot work for a competitor within 6 months. It is assumed that by this time the IP you have becomes less valuable. There are claims that this 6 month rule is not enforceable, because clauses in a contract cannot remain active after the contract has been terminated (duh!)
2. They can make you sign a NDA. I have never been asked to sign one of these so don't know much details. There was a recent case in the UK, where despite agreeing to the Official Secrets Act, a person was allowed to publish their memoirs about their time in the secret service (It's their life). I believe the Official Secrets Act is a little more enforceable than a NDA.
3. When you give notice, they can march you directly out of the building, and then pay your your notice period to stay at home. This is their only way to prevent you taking copies of any secrets. If they later try to sue under breach of copyright, they have to overcome the triple hurdles of A: Proving that your work in the new job is similar, B: Show that it is unreasonable to expect you to come up with the solution independantly, and C: They need to prove you copied information when you left. Any case is undermined if they leave you to work unsupervised once they know you are leaving.
4. They can put their IPR in a patent, if it's original and valuable. Obvious point, but: Unlike copyright, you can infringe on a patent even if you don't copy information. Patents are public knowledge, and so knowing about patents in your previous job will actually aid you in avoiding patent infringement in your new job. If the patent is in your name, great, did you give an exclusive license to your previous employer?
Personally, I always check the contract on the subject of IPR - who owns the code/docs I produce. If the company, I don't take anything when I leave. If me, I scrupulously take EVERYTHING I write. The world is changing, and the concept of IP is being questioned, but while the established rules still stand, it's best to follow them even while you challenge them. It's a fine line, but as a consultant who believes in open source but lives by developing custom closed source solutions, I must walk it.
If copyright law had existed at the time of Shakespeare, we would not have his plays today. Script-writers freely "borrowed" from plays by other people. Much of the work of Shakespeare today exists only from copied works, not originals. It is fair to assume that Shakespeare himself copied from others, as the concept of copyright did not exist. The timeless quality and depth of his work therefore comes, at least in part, from incorporating the work of others, something we today cannot do.
I think you just made the previous poster's point. Replace the word Slashdot with America, adapt the text as required.
You may have a right to free speech. But that right was given with the assumption there are no consequences, that you have a degree of anonymity which is no longer there. If you now spout opinions, you must now expect consequences, and those consequences are inescapable. In the past, you would have moved to a different town where noone knew you, you can wipe the slate clean and start again. You no longer have the option.
If you feel Slashdot is too draconian then yes, you can always start your own webpage. But if you feel America is becoming too draconian, how do you start your own country?
Yes, it is a democracy, but the PC brigade hold sway. Would you hire somebody to look after your kids if you knew they were an active poster on alt.abuse.children.doit.doit.doitnow? I know I wouldn't. If they complained, noone would argue in favour of them, because they would be blamed if they actually do abuse (whereas the abuser would be excused, as they were clearly sick and doing only what came natural to them, when you look at all this 'evidence' in hindsight).
Would you expect the government to put someone in charge of the transport of nuclear material if they were part of a terrorist organisation? Of course not, there would be hell to pay IF THEY DO ANYTHING. But do you think they would wait for absolute proof first? Of course not, it's not as if it is a trial! As a student, involvement in any socialist group would exclude you from certain government jobs in the past. Today, if you shared a flat with someone who is a member of a terrorist organisation, they would probably consider that a sufficient risk. With more information they can apply stricter safeguards, excluding people who may have possibly been infected with terrorist propaganda - so don't buy ice cream from a vendor who is a member of a terrorist organisation, just in case. You mean he didn't tell you? Of course, if he does, that may be propaganda infection - Erase yourself immediately.
With no restrictions on use of this data, you can find yourself marked as a second class citizen despite having done nothing wrong.
And I'm only thinking about abuse of genuine information. I don't want to consider the situations where the data is modified - e.g. the lazy cop who wants to track someone he really believes is smuggling liquor but can't get any evidence, may decide to mark him up as a suspected terrorist, so the FBI can do the tracking instead. He gets his conviction, and the man is marked for life!
on-topic comments to follow, but first a commercial break
Good things happen to those that wait = Long waits happen to those who are good = good finish last:(
This sig is interesting from the point of view of a professional logician because it contained a significant logical fallacy; that is, invalid propositional constructions and syllogistic forms, of the type so often committed by my wife.
'Good things happen to those who wait' states t_allardyce. 'Therefore,' he concludes, 'those who are good, wait.' This is, of course, pure bullshit. Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted: all of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan. 'Oh yes,' one would think. However, my wife does not understand this necessary limitation of the conversion of a proposition; consequently, she does not understand me, for how can a woman expect to appreciate a professor of logic, if the simplest cloth-eared syllogism causes her to flounder?
For example, given the premise, 'all fish live underwater' and 'all mackerel are fish', my wife will conclude, not that 'all mackerel live underwater', but that 'if she buys kippers it will not rain', or that 'trout live in trees', or even that 'I do not love her any more.' This she calls 'using her intuition'.
and back to our topic of conversation
I agree that the PS2 mechanism for protecting DVDs is poor. In my opinion, it makes the whole thing useless for playing DVDs at all.
I have everything plugged into my surround sound system using SCART, which then controls what goes on the screen. With the DVD protection on the PS2 the display is always screwed up, because there is another device inbetween, which is a shame because I use the optical audio out which gives GREAT sound.
Why is it, that analogue video is fine to watch, but when they up the quality to digital, they can't resist damaging it so that it is worse than analogue?
We are in the difficult transitional phase. We are offered the two choices of a George Orwellian 1984 Digital world where everything is owned and monitored by faceless corporations, and the total non-ownership "Free as in speech" and copyright is theft world promoted by some members of the open source movement. As with everything in the real world, the right path is a balance between the two extremes, where individual rights to fair use are maintained with the same vigour as the right to receive a fair income from creation.
One of our local councils in the UK owned a disused quarry. It had filled with water which was very shallow at some points. People often trespassed onto the land and swam in the water. One chap dived off the top of the quarry into a shallow part of the water, thereby breaking his neck. Said UK council was successfully sued for owning the quarry and not fully enclosing it so no-one could enter - they had limited fencing and private property signs (say, some error checking and an EULA).
1. GSM is used throughout Europe (That is: different countries). I have happily used my UK GSM phone in Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, Holland, and South Africa. It is vastly more complex to standardise across different countries than just within the US. I would have thought that Consumer demand would naturally give rise to a single standard within the country! Maybe people in the US don't travel enough to think of it as a problem!
2. On the subject of population. I don't see how this is relevant, but: Just give America a few thousand years for it to get as populated as everywhere else, ok? They say there's more Irish people in New York than in the whole of Ireland, so you are already making up for lost time 8)
All the report says is that people have emailed BBB complaining that SonicBlue is unresponsive to complaints. That is very different from saying that SonicBlue is a "questionable business"
And the report was created today. Hmmm. I would like to see a little more information. BBB may be a big organisation but how easily are they fooled?
And you are an A/C who got modded up for this? Sounds like someone is trying to slur SonicBlue to me.
I agree that the artist should be better protected from the corporation, before you can really protect copyright. But your suggestion is flawed.
This is a perfect example of why it is so hard to write decent legislature. If copyright is non-transferable it must belong to the person who has original copyright, i.e. the original author. This suggestion sounds good, but will not work in practice.
For example: I work in a large team for a software company. Normally the software we make is the copyright of the company.
If copyright is non-transferable, then the copyright doesn't belong to the company but to me. But, as I worked in a team, then only the bits I create belong to me - the rest belongs to other team members.
I will have to keep track of ownership of each part, especially when I modify something I didn't originally write. Very quickly we are quibbling over ownership of insignificant fragments of the whole - but we can't just forget it because the copyright of those fragments is non-transferable. When copyright is so diluted, it becomes worthless.
Assigning copyright to someone else is a good thing (tm).
The result of "work for hire" should be the copyright of the person who pays for it. My employer pays me to code, therefore the code is theirs.
The question is, what does the record label pay the artist to do? What is the artists' "work for hire"? An artist, rather than a songwriter, is selling the performance of their songs. The record label pays for a performance of that song which they then have copyright of - in return for royalties. A struggling artist should be protected by law from unfair and exclusive contracts that lay claim to the song itself or other performances of that song.
So what is a fair contract?
FAIR: The record label has unlimited copyright of a particular recording of a song. They have every right to prosecute unauthorised copying and distribution (and they should - THAT is their business after all).
UNFAIR: The artist is not allowed to make new recordings of the song and give it away for free - even if it ruins record label profits. You can bet this is not allowed by any record label contract! But the artist must be free to do what they wish with their property (the song).
The same principle is in force for programmers, but we have traditionally had more power over our employers. They can put a clause in my contract saying that anything I code, even in my spare time using my own computer, belongs to the company. In practice, they would only dare invoke the clause if my software really harmed the company, probably at the same time as they sack me!
But the point is, both for artists and programmers, is that we should be free to do whatever we want in our spare time. I am not a slave, and the law should not allow anyone else to be one in a free country. There should be clear legislation on the limitations of contracts to restrict personal freedoms.
The record label is then reduced to chasing copyright offenses against their recording of the songs, and must prove that the copy was derived from their recording before they can prosecute. They cannot arbitrarily claim ownership of everything that appears to be the song in future. Here legislation needs no more assistance - once the record label admits they are chasing down illegal copies of *their* material which is affecting sales of *their* CDs, they can chase down their own copyright offenses to their hearts content. Just remember, if your sales drop by 5%, you can't persuade people to buy more by suing them.
SUGGESTED SOLUTION
Once the limitation of what the record label owns is accepted, it becomes clear that the best way that the record label can prevent the artist damaging sales is to provide a free version of their recording. Why? Because the artist has the uncontrolled right to provide a free version which will undercut record sales, the only way to control this is to undercut the artist! You can't get cheaper than free, so you have to sell the fact you have the "authentic" version, as found on CD, as listed in the pop charts. This sounds like a worst case scenario for the record label - they are providing the songs for free. But they now have a controlled environment, and can put guiding measures (not restrictions) in place. Simply:
1) Allow people to download, for free, the song from the record label's web site. 2) But they must enter a key printed on the CD 3) Before downloading, people must enter a minimum of personal information (possibly just email address) 4) The downloaded song is uniquely marked. 5) Put all the songs available for download
These are not offensive measures, and are designed to stop excesses and undermine 3rd party distribution methods (are you hearing me napster? *stamp* *stamp* heh - it's a bit difficult to hear when you're six feet under eh? eh?). Yeah, people are going to download the software and never buy the CD, but what are they going to do?
1 - Steal the key for the CD. Either from a friend or off the internet. They know they need the original CD - this is going to niggle in the mind of a potential customer, and if they continue to listen to the song, they are more likely to purchase the CD to clear their conscience. But you don't want them to buy because they feel guilty - the key helps them bridge the gap between the real world (CD) and the internet, while reducing the severity of what they did (illegally downloading MP3s is bad). Keep the key the same for all CDs in a country, so they know they can legitimise what they bought at any time. 2 - Get their IP address and email address, web sites do this all the time, and the user never knows. Encourage people to use a membership login service, but don't require it - offer extras if they do. When you build a relationship, you build trust. If they trust you, you can trust them (eventually) 3 - Uniquely mark the song. You can now easily sue if someone distributes it far and wide, but never do it. They are distributing a free version of the song, so you have no damages anyway. But if you trace the source and lean on the person gently they are more than likely to run around trying to remove the file for you! If you rely on this too much, someone will make a tool to strip the mark out of the song. 4 - Don't give them a reason to copy the CD itself. Put all the songs on the internet. Put added value things like interviews, images, videos, posters, and inserts with the CD.
Yeah, they could just download a stripped version of the file from the internet, but if they can get it for free from a legitimate source, why would they? Create a path of least resistence that is legitimate, that initiates a relationship, then leverage this relationship to encourage anyone who hasn't bought the CD to do so. You cannot do this if your potential customer distrusts you, or if you polarise your customers by categorising them as good (but ignored) or very very evil.
I've got some moderator points, but I couldn't find a category of "Anally retentive". So I'm safe to say that it is Shipman who is in Chicago, the guy he's trying to sue is in Canada.
It's interesting to note that Shipman claims he comes from a *family* of lawyers. In other words he gets his legal advice across the dinner table at home at daddy's. Of course, if they sue on his behalf he has the opportunity to ruin his family as well as himself.
Did anyone read the resume the kid was sending out with the spam (it's on the web page)? Shipman was an "I.T Director" for a "consulting division" of a small firm - though experience in that job appeared to involve a lot of laying cables and "finding and removing viruses" (gotta love it). He had such a cushy time of it, when he left (pushed?) he decided to start his own consultancy - though by the resume he hasn't had any clients worth referencing since the turn of the millenium. The resume as it stands is difficult to wade through and omits most of the important information (like qualifications of any sort - did he even graduate from college? Daddy must be most disappointed in him). Shame, looks like he may have done some worthwhile work - some potential there (in admin and technical support). Such a shame, his career had everything to live for, to die so young - oh the humanity! heh heh heh
He's gone totally mad! And I'm reaping all the benefits - The Wedding Singer
Actually, the human brain is so good at adapting to this sort of thing it is almost untrue. There was a program in the UK (years ago, can't remember what it was called) that used to demonstrate interesting science facts. One of the things they did was make somebody wear lenses that turned their vision upside down. After two weeks of constantly wearing the lenses the person had completely adapted. The fun thing was they made the person take them off on the show - he couldn't handle normal vision anymore !
Similar to how people regain use of their hands after transplants etc. The nerve to you knuckle may now be connected to your wrist, but as long as there is a connection the brain eventually sorts it out.
"innovation" is not a crap propaganda word, and we *should* be using it more often. It is just abused by Microsoft more than anybody. Their strategy is embrace and extend (tm) - they elaborate someone else's idea and call it innovation. Open source is exactly the same, just our motives are nobler. 8)
Innovation is hard. You need an original idea, you need vision, and you need to communicate it. Getting even one stranger to commit time and effort is not easy when you have nothing to show. That is why the call to arms is usually "Let's build a better mousetrap!" rather than "Let's build a reapostum" (what's a reapostum? - dunno, let's help the mousetrap group). This is probably why most Open Source games are never finished - originality is not always rewarded.
You are most likely to see innovation in small applications - built by one person, who can then shout "help me" to the community. The problem is that we expect our software to be "born" in epic proportions. Look at all the people panning freeCiv because it lacks features in the commercial Civ games. How do you expect innovative software to emerge from open source if you dismiss it out of hand? And so you have a clone of something that already exists, it gains a following which then allows real innovation to be added - but by then you are all working on a mousetrap, and nobody is working on a reapostum.
I agree with the earlier posting: "Innovation is in small steps". But I would like to add that, for true innovation, the first step is a big one, and it's taken alone.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because Jeff Minter's games all look distinctly different from other games, doesn't mean they are all the same. If you check other screenshots: 1, 2, 3 you can see that the game is very different. Tempest is looking down a static 'web' while many of the screenshots seem to show travelling down some sort of tunnel network. What the game actually *is* though is still unknown.
Looking forward to seeing something a bit different.
Excellent post - someone mod parent up!
;). At the very least there may reach a point where the interference corrupts the data beyond use. And, although I believe you are correct in assuming that the majority of signals within the plane will be for sensors, in a fly-by-wire plane many of the signals will be for controlling devices - corrupting such a signal could mean the pilot is unable to control parts of the plane, if only temporarily.
At all times the likelihood of interference is extremely rare. I fully agree that some form of data checks will be in place, but don't agree that interference could in all cases be ignored. I don't discard my thought that interference may still be interpreted as genuine data completely though
Double bollocks... with a knob on.
I would hardly call myself biased. At home I have a wireless doorbell, digital satelite, a car with remote central locking, a pair of cordless phones, 4 mobile phones (between the three of us), a couple of cybikos, one of those X10-type TV things, a wireless PS2 controller, and I just bought a Gamecube wavebird yesterday. I used to have a targeted microwave dish for broadband (TELE2 in Reading UK - great), but in the new house I'm stuck with modem, so have no reason to install Wi-Fi on the half dozen vintage computers I tinker with (though that would be a project - can you even get wireless cards for 16-bit ISA slots? how about VESA?). I read slashdot because I am a geek, not because I am some rabid anti-technologist.
In general, mobile phones and wi-fi are safe. Safe is a qualitative term. Microsoft Windows is safe for use in an office environment, but would you consider their shrinkwrapped software safe for use in critical systems such as hospital equipment, pacemakers (Windows CE for pacemakers!), key airplane control systems, and naval vessels? When you introduce new devices into more life-critical environments you must accept that the definition of Safe for those devices must change, the critique has to be more stringent. Mobile phones are safe, but are they safe for use in Airplanes?
You are ducking the argument. Lets ignore that you are ready to discard research out of hand. You are trying to make me prove to you that mobile phones aren't safe, but have no arguments that they are. Given that the risk to life of you being wrong is far more than the risk to life if I am, I suggest that you provide something more positive in the way of argument. I agree that it is a one in a million chance that a mobile or wifi device will interfere with an airplane enough to cause a crash. But, with tens of thousands of planes flying every day, and hundreds of mobiles on each plane, a one in a million chance will occur every day. So I suggest you at least propose some positive evidence before discarding an existing safety precaution. And not some silly apochryphical story about your 4th cousin who uses mobile phones on planes all the time and has never crashed yet.
I will iterate the point for a third time, as you still seem to have missed it. It is not the strength of the signal that is a problem, it is the information content within that signal. I never mentioned anything about standing in front of a microwave - that is a completely different discussion. I should also make clear that the hacking a plane with a pda idea is very much tongue in cheek - the mention of sticky back plastic and Blue Peter badges (ok, UK centric, shoe is on the other foot now Slashdot!) can be seen as a clue.
But let me get back to the point that it is not the signal but the information in the signal.
Have you ever noticed your digital satelite TV picture during a storm. You get a perfect picture regardless of the conditions outside... up to a point. There comes a point where the interference from the storm exceeds the fault tolerance in the TV signal, and suddenly your perfect picture is a series of bright squares, fractured images, and it sounds like somebody is taking pot shots at a squealing pig. Basically, digital signals don't degrade gracefully. Compare that with an analogue signal - you rarely get a perfect image, but during severe interference you can still make out the image (ain't the human visual system great - which is why people can watch scrambled porn by squinting their eyes, allegedly).
Now if you have ever used a taxi with a CB radio you'll recognise the next point. Taxi radios remain absolutely silent until they receive a signal from their base station, when they burst into full life. Now sometimes they pop into life with a burst of static for a split second, for no apparent reason. Basically some interference tricked the CB into thinking it was receiving a signal from the base sta
Double bollocks.
Did I mention that I researched this to stop a mobile phone mast being built next to my house? Did I? I didn't want one because it would look bad, but I couldn't object on those grounds. After A bit of dirt digging I suddenly realised I didn't want one due to the health aspects. Here is some of the information I put together to help my planning objection. I have made some text bold at the end of the information that I think is directly relevant to the problems in proving ahead of time that any one particular device will be dangerous in any particular situation:
Other effects of RF Radiation
Heating alone is not the only effect of RF radiation. The pulsed microwave radiation used in mobile telephony is similar in frequency and pulse to some of the brain's own electrical activities. This means that the brain can be interfered with by even weak radiation, due to the information content of the signal. This is how critical energised equipment in aircraft, hospitals, and heart pacemakers are affected. Don't forget - you should never go near a mast if you have a pacemaker.
The signals from mobile telephony use frequencies that can be discerned by the brain, and does affect brain function:
* It may cause headaches, it affects structures and systems in the brain in a way that is considered to cause headaches.
* It disrupts sleep. The duration of REM sleep is shortened by exposure to radiation. This impairs the bodies nightly repair process, which will leave you more prone to illness.
* It causes fits in people pre-disposed to epileptic seizures. The signals caused in the brain by particular flashing lights may be reproduced by microwave signals entering the brain directly, causing the same result.
* It affects memory. Microwave radiation interferes with the hippocampal region of the brain, which is consistent with reports of memory problems. Behaviours such as hyper-activity and temper tantrums may be due to similar interference.
* It may cause cancer. Disruption of sleep inhibits nocturnal secretion of Melatonin. Experiments have also shown that radiation too weak to break down DNA can remove Melatonin. Melatonin clears up free-radicals, which if left, may cause cancer. It has been shown that pulsed microwave radiation promotes the development of cancer in mice.
Research into non-thermal effects has not progressed far. It is difficult to reproduce as everybody has different brain waves, and this causes each individual to react differently to the same radiation signal. More research is necessary, but the Stewart report concludes that it may cause subtle biological effects and evidence so far justifies a precautionary approach, as advised in Article 130r of the European Treaties (Maastricht Treaty). If you consider the danger from RF radiation from masts is like having a gun, and not knowing if it is loaded or not. The precautionary approach simply means "don't put a gun against your head and pull the trigger unless you are sure it isn't loaded". This is why many countries in Europe, and the rest of the world, have a 500m exclusion zone around masts, ensuring no-one lives within the potentially dangerous area. Many county councils also have this policy, unfortunately ours does not.
The old shoebox sized cell phones probably were a big part of it, but so was all the unshielded life saving equipment the hospital used. Probably this hospital had replaced all their equipment to safer models, but remember that the existing equipment was probably sold on to a smaller hospital nearby. Please, please, follow the instructions on the signs. At the very least, in this lawsuit laden world, you don't want to be seen using a mobile phone near to some person as they watch their relative die - you may find yourself the target of a tenuous lawsuit in which you will not be able to conclusively prove that you did not contribute to their death. Expensive win or lose.
It really is a scientific principle to err on the side of safety until conclusive evidence has been provided that phone signals cannot interfere. It is known that signals can change wavelength (it's frequency people). Mobile phones are also not monitored or maintained - they can easily be broadcasting a whole range of signals. I have an old mobile that every so often empties a full charge when searching a transmitter - causing a godawful sound on the car speakers. I fly twice a week. I make sure I switch it off.
bollocks.
RF shielding increases weight, a premium on airplanes, so you can never wrap enough shielding around anything to guarantee that *no* signal will leak through. It is never about the strength of the signal anyhow - it is about the information *in* the signal that is the greatest risk. It is entirely possible that data transmitted from your cell phone or wifi card could be interpreted as instructions for the nav, comm, and control systems. It is *extremely* unlikely, but possible.
I actually replied to the author of The Register article when he first posted it, and see no reason why I shouldn't include that reply here:
The fact is that mobile phones cause interference all the time, the "biddy bip" is an obvious example. And yes, interference rarely affects other electronics. It's just the keyword "rarely" that gives pilots the willies. Everyone has a friend of a friend who could pick up radio on his fillings. It is altogether possible that the signal from a mobile phone or other wireless device could be picked up by another device directly or indirectly through an otherwise innocuous component. Again, this interference probably happens all the time. So why is it a problem?
It is not necessarily the strength of the signal, but the data transferred over the signal that is a problem. As it is accepted that interference does happen, it is altogether possible that a digital device can send a digital signal that is successfully interpreted as an instruction for a component of the airplane. In short, if the pilot controls the plane by computer control there is no reason why you can't do the same from the comfort of your seat in economy using just your PDA, some malformed fillings, a washing-up bottle, and some double sided sticky tape. Minor incidents probably happen all the time, a split second odd reading from a sensor, a brief hesitation of one wing, but if you were responsible for the undercarriage rising a second before the plane lands I'm sure it's not something you are likely to get a Blue Peter badge for.
Now why they can't build a wireless protocol that responds to a "be quiet, you're on a plane" signal is a different question.
A very well made point - but I have to firmly disagree. I agree that the material you are infringing should be the subject (or one of the subjects) of the parody, but I say that the Strawberry Shortcake material was the primary subject of the material. More accurately, the comic is making a statement how American McGee would (unintentionally) make a parody of Strawberry Shortcake if he were allowed to convert it to a videogame. If this picture was produced by American McGee himself, there would be no question that it is a parody of Strawberry Shortcake. In fact, it is clearly the intent to pretend that this is so, with the true nature only revealed in the small print and the context of where it was originally posted (the penny arcade site now being the only place where you definately cannot find it).
Does the fact that the comic was produced by Penny Arcade rather than American McGee make it any less of a parody of Strawberry Shortcake? I don't think so.
Is it a parody of American McGee's work? Well, I think it's that too! American McGee's work on Alice was widely acclaimed, but his work on Wizard of Oz has implied a one trick pony mentality - take a wholesome subject material (I'm talking about the _commonly_ held perception of the material) and make it dark, twisted, and add sexual elements. To choose an extremely wholesome and childlike initial subject and apply all the "trademark" McGee elements in one image just highlights the unimaginative nature of his approach. It is an intentional parody of one persons work whose work unintentionally makes a parody of others'.
I like it, but then I've been following Penny Arcade for years.
In fact, Peter Molyneux actually has initiatives to keep the bedroom coder alive. Admittedly he's supporting Jeff Minter which is a pretty safe bet (check out the the "unity" mention on the lionhead site)
More of the same, that's what I say!
A Troll? How bizarre. Could whoever did that please post to this thread and make yourself known 8)
As the original post mentions Jeff Minter and was from the "well-as-long-as-there-are-llamas dept.", a link to the llamasoft website isn't exactly off topic nor a troll. And anything Minter related *is* demo scene related - heh, check out the South Party Demo.
I highly recommend you try the Gridrunner++ game. It matches the feel of retro games with great modern graphics and sounds (and I'm not saying that just because I donated a bunch of the graphics 8) ).
At that point, only mutant camels (geeky heehaw *snort*).
It does help reason why most of his early games involved mutated animals though. I believe he now has a couple of llamas, goats, and sheep (including Flossie, "the prettiest sheep in the world"). Recent games have shown a distinct lack of mutated animals, and an increased presence of hungry sheep. He is also known as the father of VLM (Virtual Light Machines), once you have a DVD player with embedded VLM, you don't want to go back.
The guy has originality running through him like a really really spicy curry.
And he's Baaaack!
Seriously, the only reason why we aren't all playing games filled with mutated goats, sheep, and llamas is because the guy had such loyalty to Atari. Now he's free and back in the business, watch out for a shift in the content of games of the future. Ok BMX XXX 2 isn't going to flash you sheared sheep, but you get the idea.
Apparently there will be a big announcement before the end of January. Something wonderful is happening in casa Llamasoft. Remember, you heard it here first.
I completely agree. However, a leasehold agreement seems to fit better with me - you tend to pay upfront for a 2 year lease which you have first refusal on renewal. You can sell on the remaining term of your lease to 3rd parties at any time.
I would say a domain is a property, and should be considered the same as a highstreet store (a mall shopfront if you prefer). The "owner" of the shop has leased the property, and for all reasonable purposes can treat it as if they own it. With a bricks&mortars lease you know when you've been evicted, but when you lose your domain, the first you know of it may be when people stop coming into your store.
The agreement between you and the registrar is that they will direct people to your web site, and will continue to do so until your agreement ends or you tell them otherwise. Anything else is a breach of the agreement on their part. If a they act on a letter from a 3rd party saying "I now own this site, give it to me" then that's a breach of their agreement with you. Whether the 3rd party committed fraud is between the registrar and the 3rd party - now that's a court case I would like to see, I'm sure even judges like to see a nice farce now and then!
Sorry, I should have said Mike Batt settled his case (by paying a six figure sum). I don't know about you, but I don't have that sort of money lying around.
Music composer John Cage had an album with a track of nothing, nada, complete silence. It was called "4'33", and was four minutes thirty three seconds long.
Musician Mike Batt created an album which had a track of complete silence, lasting one minute, called "A Minute's Silence". He credited John Cage as co-writer as a "tongue-in-cheek dig" at the whole concept. John Cage's publishers then sued him.
The court case included various hijinx, where defendant/prosecutor tried to prove the compositions as different/the same by having live performances of the work. Mike Batt performed his silent work himself, while John Cage's work was performed by a musician not playing the clarinet.
Although very very silly, Mike Batt lost his case because it was obvious he knew about the prior work. But, in principle, he could have been sued even if he appeared ignorant of John Cage's work. If someone can claim copyright ownership of a stream of zeros on a CD, then there is no hope for the concept of Intellectual Property.
Feels like a slashback - but like many of you I've been following this for a while, I kept my own little list of interesting articles. Until now I've nowhere to put them, so this is as good an opportunity as any:
Terrorism, Copyright, or hacking. Apply whatever label you want to what offends you
It would be funny if it wasn't true:
But there's hope:
Hope you find them interesting reading. I'll go back to lurking 8)
I'm a consultant, so this question directly affects me too.
Firstly, as the law stands, IP and copyright are very important. You can't ignore it just because you personally disagree with the law here.
Secondly, you are expected to use your experience gained from one job in subsquent employment. When you leave, you take with you all your skills and knowledge. Normally, you can't take any information away with you - no documents, no CDs, no code.
One of the senior lawyers for our company once said "The thing I fear most is a programmer who brings with him a CD full of code from prvious jobs". This immediately taints all work done, as it raises the question of whether the work is original or not. As someone else said, this can be a concern when MS open up their source.
Companies say that employees are their best asset for good reason. Not least, when they leave you can assume all your trade secrets went out the door with them. However, there are tools that your previous employer could use: (obligatory IANAL)
1. The previous employer can put a clause in your contract saying you cannot work for a competitor within 6 months. It is assumed that by this time the IP you have becomes less valuable. There are claims that this 6 month rule is not enforceable, because clauses in a contract cannot remain active after the contract has been terminated (duh!)
2. They can make you sign a NDA. I have never been asked to sign one of these so don't know much details. There was a recent case in the UK, where despite agreeing to the Official Secrets Act, a person was allowed to publish their memoirs about their time in the secret service (It's their life). I believe the Official Secrets Act is a little more enforceable than a NDA.
3. When you give notice, they can march you directly out of the building, and then pay your your notice period to stay at home. This is their only way to prevent you taking copies of any secrets. If they later try to sue under breach of copyright, they have to overcome the triple hurdles of A: Proving that your work in the new job is similar, B: Show that it is unreasonable to expect you to come up with the solution independantly, and C: They need to prove you copied information when you left. Any case is undermined if they leave you to work unsupervised once they know you are leaving.
4. They can put their IPR in a patent, if it's original and valuable. Obvious point, but: Unlike copyright, you can infringe on a patent even if you don't copy information. Patents are public knowledge, and so knowing about patents in your previous job will actually aid you in avoiding patent infringement in your new job. If the patent is in your name, great, did you give an exclusive license to your previous employer?
Personally, I always check the contract on the subject of IPR - who owns the code/docs I produce. If the company, I don't take anything when I leave. If me, I scrupulously take EVERYTHING I write. The world is changing, and the concept of IP is being questioned, but while the established rules still stand, it's best to follow them even while you challenge them. It's a fine line, but as a consultant who believes in open source but lives by developing custom closed source solutions, I must walk it.
If copyright law had existed at the time of Shakespeare, we would not have his plays today. Script-writers freely "borrowed" from plays by other people. Much of the work of Shakespeare today exists only from copied works, not originals. It is fair to assume that Shakespeare himself copied from others, as the concept of copyright did not exist. The timeless quality and depth of his work therefore comes, at least in part, from incorporating the work of others, something we today cannot do.
I think you just made the previous poster's point. Replace the word Slashdot with America, adapt the text as required.
You may have a right to free speech. But that right was given with the assumption there are no consequences, that you have a degree of anonymity which is no longer there. If you now spout opinions, you must now expect consequences, and those consequences are inescapable. In the past, you would have moved to a different town where noone knew you, you can wipe the slate clean and start again. You no longer have the option.
If you feel Slashdot is too draconian then yes, you can always start your own webpage. But if you feel America is becoming too draconian, how do you start your own country?
Yes, it is a democracy, but the PC brigade hold sway. Would you hire somebody to look after your kids if you knew they were an active poster on alt.abuse.children.doit.doit.doitnow? I know I wouldn't. If they complained, noone would argue in favour of them, because they would be blamed if they actually do abuse (whereas the abuser would be excused, as they were clearly sick and doing only what came natural to them, when you look at all this 'evidence' in hindsight).
Would you expect the government to put someone in charge of the transport of nuclear material if they were part of a terrorist organisation? Of course not, there would be hell to pay IF THEY DO ANYTHING. But do you think they would wait for absolute proof first? Of course not, it's not as if it is a trial! As a student, involvement in any socialist group would exclude you from certain government jobs in the past. Today, if you shared a flat with someone who is a member of a terrorist organisation, they would probably consider that a sufficient risk. With more information they can apply stricter safeguards, excluding people who may have possibly been infected with terrorist propaganda - so don't buy ice cream from a vendor who is a member of a terrorist organisation, just in case. You mean he didn't tell you? Of course, if he does, that may be propaganda infection - Erase yourself immediately.
With no restrictions on use of this data, you can find yourself marked as a second class citizen despite having done nothing wrong.
And I'm only thinking about abuse of genuine information. I don't want to consider the situations where the data is modified - e.g. the lazy cop who wants to track someone he really believes is smuggling liquor but can't get any evidence, may decide to mark him up as a suspected terrorist, so the FBI can do the tracking instead. He gets his conviction, and the man is marked for life!
on-topic comments to follow, but first a commercial break
:(
Good things happen to those that wait = Long waits happen to those who are good = good finish last
This sig is interesting from the point of view of a professional logician because it contained a significant logical fallacy; that is, invalid propositional constructions and syllogistic forms, of the type so often committed by my wife.
'Good things happen to those who wait' states t_allardyce. 'Therefore,' he concludes, 'those who are good, wait.' This is, of course, pure bullshit. Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted: all of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan. 'Oh yes,' one would think. However, my wife does not understand this necessary limitation of the conversion of a proposition; consequently, she does not understand me, for how can a woman expect to appreciate a professor of logic, if the simplest cloth-eared syllogism causes her to flounder?
For example, given the premise, 'all fish live underwater' and 'all mackerel are fish', my wife will conclude, not that 'all mackerel live underwater', but that 'if she buys kippers it will not rain', or that 'trout live in trees', or even that 'I do not love her any more.' This she calls 'using her intuition'.
and back to our topic of conversation
I agree that the PS2 mechanism for protecting DVDs is poor. In my opinion, it makes the whole thing useless for playing DVDs at all.
I have everything plugged into my surround sound system using SCART, which then controls what goes on the screen. With the DVD protection on the PS2 the display is always screwed up, because there is another device inbetween, which is a shame because I use the optical audio out which gives GREAT sound.
Why is it, that analogue video is fine to watch, but when they up the quality to digital, they can't resist damaging it so that it is worse than analogue?
We are in the difficult transitional phase. We are offered the two choices of a George Orwellian 1984 Digital world where everything is owned and monitored by faceless corporations, and the total non-ownership "Free as in speech" and copyright is theft world promoted by some members of the open source movement. As with everything in the real world, the right path is a balance between the two extremes, where individual rights to fair use are maintained with the same vigour as the right to receive a fair income from creation.
My two penniths.
One of our local councils in the UK owned a disused quarry. It had filled with water which was very shallow at some points. People often trespassed onto the land and swam in the water. One chap dived off the top of the quarry into a shallow part of the water, thereby breaking his neck. Said UK council was successfully sued for owning the quarry and not fully enclosing it so no-one could enter - they had limited fencing and private property signs (say, some error checking and an EULA).
A slight over-reaction methinks.
1. GSM is used throughout Europe (That is: different countries). I have happily used my UK GSM phone in Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, Holland, and South Africa. It is vastly more complex to standardise across different countries than just within the US. I would have thought that Consumer demand would naturally give rise to a single standard within the country! Maybe people in the US don't travel enough to think of it as a problem!
2. On the subject of population. I don't see how this is relevant, but: Just give America a few thousand years for it to get as populated as everywhere else, ok? They say there's more Irish people in New York than in the whole of Ireland, so you are already making up for lost time 8)
That is a highly suspicious report.
All the report says is that people have emailed BBB complaining that SonicBlue is unresponsive to complaints. That is very different from saying that SonicBlue is a "questionable business"
And the report was created today. Hmmm. I would like to see a little more information. BBB may be a big organisation but how easily are they fooled?
And you are an A/C who got modded up for this? Sounds like someone is trying to slur SonicBlue to me.
I agree that the artist should be better protected from the corporation, before you can really protect copyright. But your suggestion is flawed.
This is a perfect example of why it is so hard to write decent legislature. If copyright is non-transferable it must belong to the person who has original copyright, i.e. the original author. This suggestion sounds good, but will not work in practice.
For example: I work in a large team for a software company. Normally the software we make is the copyright of the company.
If copyright is non-transferable, then the copyright doesn't belong to the company but to me. But, as I worked in a team, then only the bits I create belong to me - the rest belongs to other team members.
I will have to keep track of ownership of each part, especially when I modify something I didn't originally write. Very quickly we are quibbling over ownership of insignificant fragments of the whole - but we can't just forget it because the copyright of those fragments is non-transferable. When copyright is so diluted, it becomes worthless.
Assigning copyright to someone else is a good thing (tm).
The result of "work for hire" should be the copyright of the person who pays for it. My employer pays me to code, therefore the code is theirs.
The question is, what does the record label pay the artist to do? What is the artists' "work for hire"?
An artist, rather than a songwriter, is selling the performance of their songs. The record label pays for a performance of that song which they then have copyright of - in return for royalties. A struggling artist should be protected by law from unfair and exclusive contracts that lay claim to the song itself or other performances of that song.
So what is a fair contract?
FAIR: The record label has unlimited copyright of a particular recording of a song. They have every right to prosecute unauthorised copying and distribution (and they should - THAT is their business after all).
UNFAIR: The artist is not allowed to make new recordings of the song and give it away for free - even if it ruins record label profits. You can bet this is not allowed by any record label contract! But the artist must be free to do what they wish with their property (the song).
The same principle is in force for programmers, but we have traditionally had more power over our employers. They can put a clause in my contract saying that anything I code, even in my spare time using my own computer, belongs to the company. In practice, they would only dare invoke the clause if my software really harmed the company, probably at the same time as they sack me!
But the point is, both for artists and programmers, is that we should be free to do whatever we want in our spare time. I am not a slave, and the law should not allow anyone else to be one in a free country. There should be clear legislation on the limitations of contracts to restrict personal freedoms.
The record label is then reduced to chasing copyright offenses against their recording of the songs, and must prove that the copy was derived from their recording before they can prosecute. They cannot arbitrarily claim ownership of everything that appears to be the song in future. Here legislation needs no more assistance - once the record label admits they are chasing down illegal copies of *their* material which is affecting sales of *their* CDs, they can chase down their own copyright offenses to their hearts content. Just remember, if your sales drop by 5%, you can't persuade people to buy more by suing them.
SUGGESTED SOLUTION
Once the limitation of what the record label owns is accepted, it becomes clear that the best way that the record label can prevent the artist damaging sales is to provide a free version of their recording. Why? Because the artist has the uncontrolled right to provide a free version which will undercut record sales, the only way to control this is to undercut the artist! You can't get cheaper than free, so you have to sell the fact you have the "authentic" version, as found on CD, as listed in the pop charts. This sounds like a worst case scenario for the record label - they are providing the songs for free. But they now have a controlled environment, and can put guiding measures (not restrictions) in place. Simply:
1) Allow people to download, for free, the song from the record label's web site.
2) But they must enter a key printed on the CD
3) Before downloading, people must enter a minimum of personal information (possibly just email address)
4) The downloaded song is uniquely marked.
5) Put all the songs available for download
These are not offensive measures, and are designed to stop excesses and undermine 3rd party distribution methods (are you hearing me napster? *stamp* *stamp* heh - it's a bit difficult to hear when you're six feet under eh? eh?). Yeah, people are going to download the software and never buy the CD, but what are they going to do?
1 - Steal the key for the CD. Either from a friend or off the internet. They know they need the original CD - this is going to niggle in the mind of a potential customer, and if they continue to listen to the song, they are more likely to purchase the CD to clear their conscience. But you don't want them to buy because they feel guilty - the key helps them bridge the gap between the real world (CD) and the internet, while reducing the severity of what they did (illegally downloading MP3s is bad). Keep the key the same for all CDs in a country, so they know they can legitimise what they bought at any time.
2 - Get their IP address and email address, web sites do this all the time, and the user never knows. Encourage people to use a membership login service, but don't require it - offer extras if they do. When you build a relationship, you build trust. If they trust you, you can trust them (eventually)
3 - Uniquely mark the song. You can now easily sue if someone distributes it far and wide, but never do it. They are distributing a free version of the song, so you have no damages anyway. But if you trace the source and lean on the person gently they are more than likely to run around trying to remove the file for you! If you rely on this too much, someone will make a tool to strip the mark out of the song.
4 - Don't give them a reason to copy the CD itself. Put all the songs on the internet. Put added value things like interviews, images, videos, posters, and inserts with the CD.
Yeah, they could just download a stripped version of the file from the internet, but if they can get it for free from a legitimate source, why would they? Create a path of least resistence that is legitimate, that initiates a relationship, then leverage this relationship to encourage anyone who hasn't bought the CD to do so. You cannot do this if your potential customer distrusts you, or if you polarise your customers by categorising them as good (but ignored) or very very evil.
Anyway rambling rant mode off. I need sleep!
I've got some moderator points, but I couldn't find a category of "Anally retentive". So I'm safe to say that it is Shipman who is in Chicago, the guy he's trying to sue is in Canada.
It's interesting to note that Shipman claims he comes from a *family* of lawyers. In other words he gets his legal advice across the dinner table at home at daddy's. Of course, if they sue on his behalf he has the opportunity to ruin his family as well as himself.
Did anyone read the resume the kid was sending out with the spam (it's on the web page)? Shipman was an "I.T Director" for a "consulting division" of a small firm - though experience in that job appeared to involve a lot of laying cables and "finding and removing viruses" (gotta love it). He had such a cushy time of it, when he left (pushed?) he decided to start his own consultancy - though by the resume he hasn't had any clients worth referencing since the turn of the millenium. The resume as it stands is difficult to wade through and omits most of the important information (like qualifications of any sort - did he even graduate from college? Daddy must be most disappointed in him). Shame, looks like he may have done some worthwhile work - some potential there (in admin and technical support). Such a shame, his career had everything to live for, to die so young - oh the humanity! heh heh heh
He's gone totally mad! And I'm reaping all the benefits - The Wedding Singer
Actually, the human brain is so good at adapting to this sort of thing it is almost untrue. There was a program in the UK (years ago, can't remember what it was called) that used to demonstrate interesting science facts. One of the things they did was make somebody wear lenses that turned their vision upside down. After two weeks of constantly wearing the lenses the person had completely adapted. The fun thing was they made the person take them off on the show - he couldn't handle normal vision anymore !
Similar to how people regain use of their hands after transplants etc. The nerve to you knuckle may now be connected to your wrist, but as long as there is a connection the brain eventually sorts it out.
"innovation" is not a crap propaganda word, and we *should* be using it more often. It is just abused by Microsoft more than anybody. Their strategy is embrace and extend (tm) - they elaborate someone else's idea and call it innovation. Open source is exactly the same, just our motives are nobler. 8)
Innovation is hard. You need an original idea, you need vision, and you need to communicate it. Getting even one stranger to commit time and effort is not easy when you have nothing to show. That is why the call to arms is usually "Let's build a better mousetrap!" rather than "Let's build a reapostum" (what's a reapostum? - dunno, let's help the mousetrap group). This is probably why most Open Source games are never finished - originality is not always rewarded.
You are most likely to see innovation in small applications - built by one person, who can then shout "help me" to the community. The problem is that we expect our software to be "born" in epic proportions. Look at all the people panning freeCiv because it lacks features in the commercial Civ games. How do you expect innovative software to emerge from open source if you dismiss it out of hand? And so you have a clone of something that already exists, it gains a following which then allows real innovation to be added - but by then you are all working on a mousetrap, and nobody is working on a reapostum.
I agree with the earlier posting: "Innovation is in small steps". But I would like to add that, for true innovation, the first step is a big one, and it's taken alone.