You're thinking of JSG Boggs. He makes his own money and spends it (to anyone who will accept it) at face value. He doesn't sell them as art, however. He just buys stuff with them.
Apparently the value as a work of art is actually higher than the face value. If you run across a Boggs bill, you definately want to look for an interested art collector. (or keep it in circulation, which is more fun)
Have you considered trying to fully integrate the two? E.g. where you can select files with both regexps and the mouse, then pipe them through a program, with output to a folder selected with a standard open/save type dialog?
Why the two UIs have to exist in isolation from each other, I'll be damned if I know.
(however, if you have hard numbers and testing methods used to support your statement, you should link to them; a lot of truths about UI turn out not to be when objectively vetted)
Yeah, this was a complaint that my friends and I used to have about Marathon on the Mac back in the mid-90's. Buttons would be placed on pillars and would _have_ to be _shot_ from afar just to be triggered.
We joked about people not wanting to go to use the fax machine because it would involve jumping around in hard vacuum, shooting and switches and avoiding pools of molten metal that didn't even have goddamn safety rails.
I don't really buy that they're necessary elements for an interesting game. Max Payne had a fairly realistic environment and was alright. OTOH, I remember OSHA being a deadly villain in Hard Hat Mack;)
Gah? Car dealerships can sell cars to anyone, AFAIK. They just don't WANT to because they can't enforce the contract against minors to the degree that they'd want to. (the minor can return the car for a refund, less wear and tear at any time prior to his majority, IIRC)
I seem to recall a lot of minors in high school owning cars. Typically having to pay cash up front because no one wants to do business with them otherwise, but buying them all the same.
No, you do not have to make any effort whatsoever to defend a copyright. You're thinking trademarks.
(the closest you can get is an estoppel argument -- that is, if you really led someone to believe that they had permission to use it, you couldn't sue them later. Merely taking no action at all isn't sufficient here... it would have to be more)
Minor nit: placing software in the public domain is not a license -- it is basically the copyright holder surrendering any rights he might have ever had. (whether this destroys the copyright or constitutes a non-retractable estoppment of later claims against the world is an interesting, but kind of irrelevant question)
There are licenses that are very very similar to the public domain, but they're not the same thing.
Defend or lose means that if you do not defend them now, you cannot defend them in the future.
Whereas failure to defend a patent generally does not destroy a cause of action to defend it later on. (yes, there are estoppel arguments like laches, but it's not too relevant here)
I thought that it was because he threatened to take away the version of BASIC that Apple had licensed from them for use on the Apple II, which was at the time the primary money maker for Apple.
Humorously, the codification of the judicially crafted Fair Use guidelines in 17 U.S.C. 107 has been interpreted by the courts, IIRC to not be binding, but merely to be a restatement of the judicial doctrine, which remains alterable should the ocassion present itself.
But the general point still holds -- copying is the norm, and exceptions carved out of that, themselves with exceptions again.
Abuse can be checked by only having a trusted group of filterers. This wouldn't be slashdot we're talking about, where it takes people with different opinions to recognize the value of various posts. What constitutes an ad is clear-cut. Just mark the start and end times, and maybe a quick description of what it is. (so that people who want, say, to capture a movie trailer off of TV can do so more easily)
Then, the longer the viewer waits, the more filters get dl'd by the PVR until it's done. With big shows, e.g. Simpsons, this could be done pretty rapidly.
To start the process, hire a couple hundred filterers, then let users filter, and start adding users to a filter group based on how closely their filter submits match those of the trusted core group until you've got so many that the need for the core group is diminished to checking out collisions.
Of course, there is a bit of a twist b/c local broadcasters may not all operate at precisely the same times (e.g. if there's local breaking news that interrupts something) but with a big enough population in the general area, and with the filter submissions tagged by station and area, this is likely a solvable problem.
Well, setting aside the Sanjuro 'hiding people in the floor' deal, check out the first treatment Lucas wrote for the movie.
http://www.aldera.net/scripts/SWTreatment.txt
There are actually a few things that survived into the final movie, e.g. the cantina arm-cutting scene. It took quite a while for the Star Wars we know to come together.
Fourteen years, not twenty. (and besides -- the founding fathers didn't precisely envisage anything, or they could've just put the term length into the Constitution itself. It was the first Congress that passed the Copyright Act of 1790.)
No, Al is just a very nice guy. In fact, he always asks for permission and was amazed to find out that somehow Coolio hadn't heard of what he wanted to do with regards to that particular song.
But Al could totally ignore the original artist and proceed anyway. There are no royalties needed for anything with regards to legitimate parodies. If there were, it would be impossible to properly do it!
Yeah, the many, many similarities between Star Wars and the Lensman series, or Akira Kurosawa movies were total coincidences, hm? (early drafts are pratically identical to "The Hidden Fortress")
There's nothing wrong with changing an existing story. Disney does it all the time. So did Shakespeare. In fact, that was the predominant sort of writing throughout history; continual refinement of stories using stock characters and situations.
Original works are nice too -- within reason. Total originality is hard to come by and not very useful if carried to extremes.
Take a look at how useful the revision of preexisting works has been to the arts in the past. It's not something to be ignored.
What, are you kidding? Authors think about that all the time.
Firstly, let's seperate authors who write for art's sake, and who therefore aren't particularly motivated by copyright, from those who are actually concerned about money.
That latter group, like most people interested in money, wants to reap the largest profit with the least expenditures. So it therefore makes perfect sense to just take a work someone else has already written, and start selling it. Almost no effort is involved! It's all profit!
Unfortunately, if all authors did this, life would suck for them. So copyright makes sense to authors.
The problem is that if total originality were required, the costs of writing a book would far exceed any compensation for it. You couldn't use themes or stock characters. You couldn't parody. You couldn't have deliberate similarities or homages. You couldn't even have accidental similarities. Going to extremes, you couldn't even use the same _words_. (Someone invented "the," and by God, if that was a creative work why shouldn't they get paid for every use of it?)
This would mean that each new work would be more incomprehensible than the last, and utterly worthless to the public. Furthermore, it would be too much effort, so virtually no one would ever want to do it.
Thus it behooves authors to only have a certain degree of copyright, lest it become too hard to create. And it behooves the reading public (which includes all authors), to not permit that copyright to be one iota more expansive than strictly necessary, lest the public good that comes of authorship be any less than the possible maximum amount.
(Incidentally, you're wrong re: quality of pirated materials. Pirated DVDs are made by the same people that manufacture the legitimate ones. They just run off extra copies. Likewise, copyright was not devised in the 18th century to prevent people from hand-copying books, but from printing them on the same types of presses that were used everywhere. It's only recently that the cost of copying technologies of any type that are above a certain ease of use threshold have fallen into the area where ordinary folks can buy 'em)
I dunno. I've read fanfic before that was far, far superior to the original source material.
But hell -- that's old news. You didn't think Shakespeare wrote the original Hamlet did you? People rewrite and refine older works all the time. There's value in stock characters and situations. Value in being able to take advantage of an audience's familiarity with a work.
No one said fraud, which is what it would be to use someone else's name on the work (unless they had substantially altered it, e.g. Disney tacking their name onto fairy tale movies).
As for the CD, it'd be a bit of a bummer, but it wouldn't bug me. Of course, I'm an artist, and until last summer (when I went back to school) I had been supporting myself for years on my art, so what do I know?
So long as I can afford to _create_ the art, any profits are gravy. I'll gladly take 'em, but not at the risk of harming the arts themselves, which is what you get from overzealous copyright schemes.
But that's not the reason we have copyright. We have copyright not so that I make money, but so that someone, anyone, creates artistic works that the public has access to. Copyrights are one method, but public subsidies would work more or less as well. The money's just the carrot, it's not the actual objective.
Actually patents were at 17 years for the longest time, and only _very_ recently got bumped up to 20.
However copyrights started at 14 years and didn't get above IIRC 28 for around a hundred years at least. They are NOT intended to be longer because of the types of works covered. It's easier to get a copyright than a patent, and so there are more copyright holders clamoring to have the term lengthened.
Frankly, the original idea for term lengths was intended to be roughly a generation, so that while you or I might have to buy books encumbered with copyright now, we could share them freely with our children, who could thus be inspired to create a whole new set of works.
A copyright on computer software of more than five years is absurd in the extreme. In fact, that might even be too long itself.
What's funny about that is that the records that are used in those awards are usually cast-offs by no name artists. One of the recipients actually cleaned his off and played it and was amazed that it was actually some church record, or something. Damn, but I wish I could remember who it was.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought that he was dead.
Aren't the claws natural too? (bone underneath the metal)
You're thinking of JSG Boggs. He makes his own money and spends it (to anyone who will accept it) at face value. He doesn't sell them as art, however. He just buys stuff with them.
Apparently the value as a work of art is actually higher than the face value. If you run across a Boggs bill, you definately want to look for an interested art collector. (or keep it in circulation, which is more fun)
Have you considered trying to fully integrate the two? E.g. where you can select files with both regexps and the mouse, then pipe them through a program, with output to a folder selected with a standard open/save type dialog?
Why the two UIs have to exist in isolation from each other, I'll be damned if I know.
(however, if you have hard numbers and testing methods used to support your statement, you should link to them; a lot of truths about UI turn out not to be when objectively vetted)
Heh -- didn't even have a PSU. But for all that it was pretty good given the competition of the day.
Yeah, this was a complaint that my friends and I used to have about Marathon on the Mac back in the mid-90's. Buttons would be placed on pillars and would _have_ to be _shot_ from afar just to be triggered.
;)
We joked about people not wanting to go to use the fax machine because it would involve jumping around in hard vacuum, shooting and switches and avoiding pools of molten metal that didn't even have goddamn safety rails.
I don't really buy that they're necessary elements for an interesting game. Max Payne had a fairly realistic environment and was alright. OTOH, I remember OSHA being a deadly villain in Hard Hat Mack
Gah? Car dealerships can sell cars to anyone, AFAIK. They just don't WANT to because they can't enforce the contract against minors to the degree that they'd want to. (the minor can return the car for a refund, less wear and tear at any time prior to his majority, IIRC)
I seem to recall a lot of minors in high school owning cars. Typically having to pay cash up front because no one wants to do business with them otherwise, but buying them all the same.
No, you do not have to make any effort whatsoever to defend a copyright. You're thinking trademarks.
(the closest you can get is an estoppel argument -- that is, if you really led someone to believe that they had permission to use it, you couldn't sue them later. Merely taking no action at all isn't sufficient here... it would have to be more)
Minor nit: placing software in the public domain is not a license -- it is basically the copyright holder surrendering any rights he might have ever had. (whether this destroys the copyright or constitutes a non-retractable estoppment of later claims against the world is an interesting, but kind of irrelevant question)
There are licenses that are very very similar to the public domain, but they're not the same thing.
Defend or lose means that if you do not defend them now, you cannot defend them in the future.
Whereas failure to defend a patent generally does not destroy a cause of action to defend it later on. (yes, there are estoppel arguments like laches, but it's not too relevant here)
I thought that it was because he threatened to take away the version of BASIC that Apple had licensed from them for use on the Apple II, which was at the time the primary money maker for Apple.
Ah well, either way, the gist of it is the same.
Humorously, the codification of the judicially crafted Fair Use guidelines in 17 U.S.C. 107 has been interpreted by the courts, IIRC to not be binding, but merely to be a restatement of the judicial doctrine, which remains alterable should the ocassion present itself.
But the general point still holds -- copying is the norm, and exceptions carved out of that, themselves with exceptions again.
Abuse can be checked by only having a trusted group of filterers. This wouldn't be slashdot we're talking about, where it takes people with different opinions to recognize the value of various posts. What constitutes an ad is clear-cut. Just mark the start and end times, and maybe a quick description of what it is. (so that people who want, say, to capture a movie trailer off of TV can do so more easily)
Then, the longer the viewer waits, the more filters get dl'd by the PVR until it's done. With big shows, e.g. Simpsons, this could be done pretty rapidly.
To start the process, hire a couple hundred filterers, then let users filter, and start adding users to a filter group based on how closely their filter submits match those of the trusted core group until you've got so many that the need for the core group is diminished to checking out collisions.
Of course, there is a bit of a twist b/c local broadcasters may not all operate at precisely the same times (e.g. if there's local breaking news that interrupts something) but with a big enough population in the general area, and with the filter submissions tagged by station and area, this is likely a solvable problem.
Well, setting aside the Sanjuro 'hiding people in the floor' deal, check out the first treatment Lucas wrote for the movie.
http://www.aldera.net/scripts/SWTreatment.txt
There are actually a few things that survived into the final movie, e.g. the cantina arm-cutting scene. It took quite a while for the Star Wars we know to come together.
Fourteen years, not twenty. (and besides -- the founding fathers didn't precisely envisage anything, or they could've just put the term length into the Constitution itself. It was the first Congress that passed the Copyright Act of 1790.)
No, Al is just a very nice guy. In fact, he always asks for permission and was amazed to find out that somehow Coolio hadn't heard of what he wanted to do with regards to that particular song.
But Al could totally ignore the original artist and proceed anyway. There are no royalties needed for anything with regards to legitimate parodies. If there were, it would be impossible to properly do it!
Yeah, the many, many similarities between Star Wars and the Lensman series, or Akira Kurosawa movies were total coincidences, hm? (early drafts are pratically identical to "The Hidden Fortress")
There's nothing wrong with changing an existing story. Disney does it all the time. So did Shakespeare. In fact, that was the predominant sort of writing throughout history; continual refinement of stories using stock characters and situations.
Original works are nice too -- within reason. Total originality is hard to come by and not very useful if carried to extremes.
Take a look at how useful the revision of preexisting works has been to the arts in the past. It's not something to be ignored.
Well, I didn't say it was all good. Most of it's crap -- but so is most of everything; Sturgeon's Law, you know.
What, are you kidding? Authors think about that all the time.
Firstly, let's seperate authors who write for art's sake, and who therefore aren't particularly motivated by copyright, from those who are actually concerned about money.
That latter group, like most people interested in money, wants to reap the largest profit with the least expenditures. So it therefore makes perfect sense to just take a work someone else has already written, and start selling it. Almost no effort is involved! It's all profit!
Unfortunately, if all authors did this, life would suck for them. So copyright makes sense to authors.
The problem is that if total originality were required, the costs of writing a book would far exceed any compensation for it. You couldn't use themes or stock characters. You couldn't parody. You couldn't have deliberate similarities or homages. You couldn't even have accidental similarities. Going to extremes, you couldn't even use the same _words_. (Someone invented "the," and by God, if that was a creative work why shouldn't they get paid for every use of it?)
This would mean that each new work would be more incomprehensible than the last, and utterly worthless to the public. Furthermore, it would be too much effort, so virtually no one would ever want to do it.
Thus it behooves authors to only have a certain degree of copyright, lest it become too hard to create. And it behooves the reading public (which includes all authors), to not permit that copyright to be one iota more expansive than strictly necessary, lest the public good that comes of authorship be any less than the possible maximum amount.
(Incidentally, you're wrong re: quality of pirated materials. Pirated DVDs are made by the same people that manufacture the legitimate ones. They just run off extra copies. Likewise, copyright was not devised in the 18th century to prevent people from hand-copying books, but from printing them on the same types of presses that were used everywhere. It's only recently that the cost of copying technologies of any type that are above a certain ease of use threshold have fallen into the area where ordinary folks can buy 'em)
This is called the Street Performer Protocol. Contrary to many people's opinions, Stephen King didn't try it out.
Look it up, the paper on it is interesting.
Meh, I like turning real pages.
I'll hold off until we have a book like the Young Lady's Illustrated Primer, which combines the two methods.
I dunno. I've read fanfic before that was far, far superior to the original source material.
But hell -- that's old news. You didn't think Shakespeare wrote the original Hamlet did you? People rewrite and refine older works all the time. There's value in stock characters and situations. Value in being able to take advantage of an audience's familiarity with a work.
No one said fraud, which is what it would be to use someone else's name on the work (unless they had substantially altered it, e.g. Disney tacking their name onto fairy tale movies).
As for the CD, it'd be a bit of a bummer, but it wouldn't bug me. Of course, I'm an artist, and until last summer (when I went back to school) I had been supporting myself for years on my art, so what do I know?
So long as I can afford to _create_ the art, any profits are gravy. I'll gladly take 'em, but not at the risk of harming the arts themselves, which is what you get from overzealous copyright schemes.
But that's not the reason we have copyright. We have copyright not so that I make money, but so that someone, anyone, creates artistic works that the public has access to. Copyrights are one method, but public subsidies would work more or less as well. The money's just the carrot, it's not the actual objective.
Actually patents were at 17 years for the longest time, and only _very_ recently got bumped up to 20.
However copyrights started at 14 years and didn't get above IIRC 28 for around a hundred years at least. They are NOT intended to be longer because of the types of works covered. It's easier to get a copyright than a patent, and so there are more copyright holders clamoring to have the term lengthened.
Frankly, the original idea for term lengths was intended to be roughly a generation, so that while you or I might have to buy books encumbered with copyright now, we could share them freely with our children, who could thus be inspired to create a whole new set of works.
A copyright on computer software of more than five years is absurd in the extreme. In fact, that might even be too long itself.
What's funny about that is that the records that are used in those awards are usually cast-offs by no name artists. One of the recipients actually cleaned his off and played it and was amazed that it was actually some church record, or something. Damn, but I wish I could remember who it was.