One key to designing good UIs is testing. Just follow the scientific method -- Try to find a way to solve some problem, test it out against a wide variety of users, collect lots of data (generally it's a good idea to videotape them, capture what they're doing on the computer, and to ask them some questions), refine your work based on what you've seen, then try again and see if it helped.
Releasing a beta isn't even nearly the same thing, however.
No it's not -- The OS X CLI is barely used, and is not even slightly integrated with the GUI.
I suspect that the 'perfect' combination would be a GUI with a CLI prompt in it that had _GUI_ effects. E.g., type the equivalent of ls (the entire CLI language would have to be created for this integration from scratch, including consistant naming) and a graphical directory window opens; there is no text listing. Or select a bunch of files with a regular expression in the CLI and then move them with the mouse to a different folder.
Apple's done nothing to improve CLIs, and virtually nothing to improve GUIs for years.
No, take a good look at his comments. It doesn't keep a polish -- it fogs up. (besides which, the interior of the case isn't all that great... the layout of the internals was pretty classy, I'll admit.
Well, ideally, you could just have a monitor and a CD drive on the desk and the computer stored god knows where. Let the CD run on a long length of Firewire, or perhaps a rather fast ethernet...
I mean, geeze -- what the hell do I need with the CPU being next to me? If the computing resources it provides are available to me it can be in the closet, in the basement, or in the next county for all I care.
Sadly, Steve screwed up in other ways. He intentionally made the manufacturing of the NeXT Cube difficult, both because he arbitrarily chose to make it out of cast magnesium, and because he didn't allow any cheating no matter how imperceptible.
Worse still, it took a great effort to find paint that would adhere to the magnesium -- ultimately, NeXT had to have consultants from car companies come in to help out... even today, it's a PITA to touch up scratches (easily made) on Cubes.
Hell, you can't even polish the damn things down to the bare metal properly -- it doesn't work nearly so well as actual chrome.
Me, I kind of like the Zebra-striped or Fleckstone painted Macs that popped up once in a while as custom jobs back in the 80's.
Actually the thinking is that it exists in the 'penumbra' of several enumerated rights. The first, third, fourth and fifth amendments all contribute to the notion of the right of privacy, and the ninth is thrown in for good measure.
IIRC this is discussed by the Supreme Court in the Griswold case.
You've never seen the painting L.H.O.O.Q. by Marcel Duchamps, have you? I'd suggest checking it out.
There is of course, NOTHING wrong altering a creative work, insofar as the original is left untouched. Indeed, it is a lovely opportunity to create more art -- art which is a reaction to the original. Or an improvement. Or using it as raw material for satire, parody, or wholly different creative works, e.g. via sampling.
A person who does so probably has great regard for the original creator. After all, they like the work enough to want to put time and effort into revising it, and you don't do that for crap.
But in doing so, they're creating MORE art. Art is a living thing; it doesn't just belong on the wall of a museum, static and untouched.
Really? I just find that a rather overbroad statement. Especially given that at my old job, I did a lot of UI design, and it's a subject that I'm very interested in.
The mouse developed at SRI was the first one in the world. But it was big, heavy, (only started out with one button! gasp!) and didn't even have a rollerball, instead relying on two perpendicular wheels. Likewise the mice developed at Xerox, as well as the ocassional third party mouse, were expensive, fragile, heavy, and broke down constantly.
They were perfectly capable of sucking, despite the fact that they were the only game in town. There's a damn good reason that the mouse developed for the Lisa is pretty much the progenitor for everything that came after; it was actually good.
I hate it when things that could be better are left alone because there's no impetus to improve them. Improvements are typically worthwhile for their own sake, and here there are already complaints!
Again though, I'm not saying there aren't alternatives to the keyboard. But rather that people who _want_ to use _a_ keyboard, apparently are having trouble with that specific keyboard.
Actually, there are objective methods for testing UIs and determining if they actually are useful or not. I mean, certainly the idea seems simple, don't you think? Give ten similar users a task, each with a different UI, and closely observe how they interact with it. The goals are efficiency, ability to learn the UI rapidly (to the degree that it's needed), and not alienating any particular user group unduly.
Follow the standard scientific method. Having tested the hypothesis, revise it according to the data, and test it again. Repeat this cycle of designing according to test results and testing the redesign frequently.
Bruce Tognazzini's books are probably a good introduction to this.
No, the keyboard is NOT fine. If you _do_ want to use it, and it is cumbersome, it means that it is designed poorly.
By analogy: If I want to stop my car, but working the brakes is extremely difficult (perhaps the pedal is located on the passenger side), it is an inane answer to tell me to just not stop. The pedal's in the wrong damn place!
As a rule of thumb, never tell users to not do something that they want to do but are prevented from it unless it is a _literal_ impossibility. Clearly, it's important to them. Clearly, they're the ones paying for it. Clearly the design must follow _their_ wants and needs. This is like rule number one in UI design.
The program such as you describe is creating new works. However, these works are so derivative, and produced so mechanistically, that such production could, under some circumstances, be infringement, even though it's a new work. It's not a sufficiently original work.
However, a work is NOT composed of a bunch of ideas strung together. An idea is just that -- it is the impetus behind a work, but it's not the work itself.
For example, here is an idea: A vigilante fights crime, relying on fear and an imposing appearance. This is quite generic, and totally unworthy of protection. (and in fact, if you read Campbell's "The Hero of a Thousand Faces," or whatever it's called, you'll start to notice how few original ideas there really are) This could easily be the idea behind Batman. But it applies just as well towards the Shadow. Or Spawn. Or, in a kind of weird way, Lethargic Lad.
If we considered it worthy of protection for the first originator of this (which could go as far back as what, Zorro... earlier even, given that that was based on Robin Hood?) it would totally screw over all the people who came along later. And the only common thread is such a widely applicable idea that it's nonsensical to prohibit their using it!
Anyway, so while it certainly seems likely that ideas can serve as the inspiration for later ideas, who really cares? Neither the new NOR old ideas are protected. I can make cartoons about a mischevious rabbit in wacky situations to my heart's content. I don't need to come up with a new idea... the old one will suffice. It only matters that the resultant work is not derivative of the old _work_.
And I mean this here -- no one owns rights to ideas. And no one need cite, although certainly it's nice of them to do so, or might be required by certain circumstances extraneous to this discussion (e.g. school policy). Nor need payment be made.
Regarding WHY this should be so, which is the underlying theory behind copyright, I'll try to get to posting later. (it's pretty late) Or you could look for some of my posts from when I've discussed this before. You'll know it when you see it -- it's really lengthy. (sorry)
The reason for what I said was not that you didn't understand the difference between an idea and a work, but rather that you claimed that new works could not be derivative of existing works without infringing on the copyright held on the old works. In your own words: "By creating new works from other idea's, you must pay for those ideas."
But that's just not so. You're not being imaginative enough, and that's what I'm calling you on. The notion that there is nothing new under the sun is an old one. Personally, as an artist, I've always liked what Picasso said: "Great artists steal." There's a decent story by Spider Robinson with this concept as its theme, here.
I haven't been saying that you lack some necessary ability to think of these things properly -- just that you haven't been. I could say that you still aren't, but you aren't really addressing the substantive issue at this point. When you'd like to, feel free -- I'll be here.
Lastly, and I hate to harp on this, but what the hell, what you said wrt my.sig was: "However, your words, combined into this post, is. It is the idea that is copyrighted. While you do not want any sort of recognition for writting this (money or just a citation) does not mean it was not copyrighted."
That's not entirely accurate. While it is true that my post was (very, very briefly) copyrighted, it was the post, and not the general idea (roughly that there are limits to copyright and damn good reasons for them) that was copyrighted.
But what's key is the last point, which is wrong. I'd be more than happy to accept honors or money based on the content of my posts. Anyone that would care to make a donation is more than welcome to do so. I just don't demand it.
In fact, I could just as easily retain the copyright and yet refuse to accept any compensation, and (rather greedily) keep it all to myself. This is, for better or worse, a valid option. Copyright is, ultimately, about copying. The things you mention are factors, but are slightly tangental to the central issue.
I mention this because I feel there's nothing wrong with a bit of recapping, if only for posterity, and that it might help someone learn something, after all.
Now then, perhaps you'd like to return to your actual argument?
What, though, is wrong with using someone else's idea? I can think of a half-dozen different variations of the Aladdin's Lamp story, each of which shares the same basic idea: that a poor boy finds a genie capable of granting wishes.
What's wrong with this?
I think that you are being too enamored of the idea that originality is essential. It is important, and to a degree, it can be good, don't get me wrong. But there is also value in variation; in modifying, perhaps only in small ways, a familiar concept or work. It allows us to closely examine the familiar, its details highlighted by the variation. It allows us to make fun, as in parodies or satires. It allows us to explore alternatives to the original story, e.g. what would have happened in Star Wars if Luke had joined Darth Vader in ESB?
These are all valuable. Indeed, the majority of our cultural history has consisted of variation on existing works. This dates back from oral traditions, has notable adherents, such as Shakespeare, and continues today with retellings of works no longer copyrighted (see Disney) or of fan fiction (of which there is certainly a notable quantity regarding Batman, and I would bet that some of which is superior to anything done by DC Comics).
At any rate, it's fun to see how your position is shifting... First you said "By creating new works from other idea's, you must pay for those ideas." But then you've apparently retracted that, saying " 'Sampling, collage, works that are homages to other works, retellings, reactions, satires, parodies' These are all original works, inspired from someone else's ideas."
A retelling of the same idea is not an original work by anyone's definition -- it is derivative -- and it NECESSARILY re-uses the same ideas.
Sorry, but I think the personal attack is warranted. You don't understand the difference between an idea and a work. The former is utterly unprotectable. The latter _may_ be to an extent, but never absolutely. Your notion that ideas are either protected or that it is desirable to do so, save for in a moral sense, is unfounded. It is your own words that damn you at this juncture.
Piracy is a different kettle of fish... but not so different. A blatantly derivative work, such as ripping a song to an mp3 is not protected. An original work, such as a new song that is a reaction to the earlier one is. Sampling the former as a sort of 'instrument' for use in the latter, quoting from the lyrics, reusing the ocassional passage of music... these occupy a grey area. Certainly those with something to lose have argued strenuously that they are not to be protected.
But this is secondary to the real question of whether or not it is worthwhile. Originality carried to its logical extreme is nigh-impossible and highly undesirable. Indeed, copyrights just for the benefit of artists are poorly thought out and not constitutional in the U.S. The social benefit is invariably of upmost importance, and is served by dedication to original works, derivative works and outright piracy, each in their measure. (here I posit that piracy means the unauthorized copying of works, regardless of the copyright status of the work, for it was originally used in this sense before the invention of copyright) Piracy, after all, promotes the survivability of works, their continued use and relevance in culture, their use as fodder for new derivative works, and especially today holds the potential of widespread low-cost dissemination.
I wouldn't advocate piracy to the detriment of society, but where it is beneficial, how could it be sensible not to do so?
(And incidentally -- the only time during which my posts are copyrighted is a brief span while I am actually typing them. Please note my.sig here. I explicitly place each and every one of my posts into the public domain at the time of posting. I'd do so earlier, if it were somewhat easier to accomplish 'round these parts. I hold no copyright on them, and I want to prevent anyone from doing so either.)
Freedom as an artist is very nearly unlimited as a consequence of the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. Furthermore, one of the (but not the only) goals of the Copyright Clause is to stimulate the creation of artistic works. When it actually diminishes the number of works being created, it has clearly failed on its own merits! Additionally, once the copyright controlling Batman (which AFAIK tends to diminish the trademark as a matter of course, for trademark law mustn't interefere with the more important purpose of placing the character, stories, etc. into the public domain as dictated by the Constitution) no one is really going to give a flying fuck what D.C. Comics thinks. They'll have had their time and they'll be satisfied with it. At such time, no one will control Batman, just as no one today controls fairy tales, or myths, to great public benefit. As far as plagarism goes, it is no doubt, legal. It's not _good_, and you can get in trouble with people who believed you hadn't been plagarizing, but it's not illegal, unless it rises to the level of copyright infringement which is a different kettle of fish. (copyright is necessarily unconcerned with ideas -- originality of ideas is unimportant, only originality -- to a certain extent -- of expression. Plagarism is concerned with both.) But besides which, you're very small-minded. Virtually all creative works are based upon prior works to some extent. Originality is hard and rare. This is moreso, the smaller a thing you consider a work to be. For example, I didn't coin a single word in this post. Does this mean that it's good, because it promotes communication, or is it bad because it harms the fortunes of word-coiners, who will not place much effort into their trade if uncompensated for it. Sampling, collage, works that are homages to other works, retellings, reactions, satires, parodies... I can see they mean nothing to you. Money drives you -- not art, and not the betterment of society.
Firstly, because if the plane were shot down as it approached, the debris would still hit _something_. New York is known for, amazingly enough, having more buildings than just those two.
Secondly, because having such things and being willing to use them would surely lead to a disasterous accident. After all -- the builders could conceive of a 707 that was lost in the fog at low altitude, and in fact, such things have happened before (the WWII bomber that crashed into the Empire State Building due to poor visibility). Are you willing to shoot down anyone that strays too close, even if it is both an innocent mistake and one that hasn't yet passed a point of no return where the plane cannot avoid hitting something?
What a stupid mentality, to think of such a thing. (which, incidentally, didn't work -- the White House is reputed to have SAMs available, yet a light plane was deliberately crashed into the grounds in the 90's)
I mean each file located on the disk has a GUID for purposes of locating the file on the disk, regardless of the name or path of the file.
This meant that it was exceedingly rare for aliases on MacOS to 'break' because the original file (if present on disk) couldn't be found. It was in fact very difficult to arrange matters so that the file couldn't be found.
I'm not referring to other types of metadata such as file type or creator, as would be implied by MIME.
Sigh. You obviously haven't tried this, or considered it much.
Let's consider me: I have a group of html files that I need to develop and maintain. Ergo, the default associated program is a text editor, because I spend most of my time editing the files.
However, I also have a group of html files, and plain text files that I like to open in a web browser, which are static text, and never, ever change. This is because they're novels and short stories -- an editing program is definately not what I want to open them with, because it's not as good for reading as a browser.
So what the hell do I do? Either waste time explicitly dragging or opening via a menu or dialog the former group of work files, or the latter group of lesiure files?
If I can arbitrarily set each file, which are identical in terms of format, to open in the program that is proper for it, I will save myself a damn lot of time and trouble.
File associations are the only way I've heard of to do it.
And because they're ALTERABLE, easily so, and ignorable, you can still open files set for RealPlayer in anything else, and have it (or a daemon) automatically change them to henceforth open automatically with that program.
No one said you can't use extensions for your own convenience! If names are totally arbitrary and flexible, you can _still_ name a file foo.txt if you want.
It just is ignored by the computer if a more accurate source of that information is available, e.g. a MIME type set by the last app to edit the file, which is more informative, e.g. text/plain; charset=unicode.
If this information _isn't_ provided, it can be attempted to be gathered by several means, all of which might be tried in turn. If the suffix matches, a temporary (because it isn't perfectly certain) metadata descriptor might be attached. It might be analyzed by the computer using the magic number system under Unix. The user might be asked if he knows the first time he attempts to open it. Or an opening program might recognize it and explicitly save it with this information.
Furthermore, there's nothing preventing there from being an OPTIONAL setting that would append suffixes to apps based upon the true metadata.
Suffixes in the file name are about the suckiest thing that ever sucked suck... if they're where type metadata is chiefly stored and looked for. As an option for people that enjoy 'em, no one is saying that they should be eliminated. No one.
I'd suggest reading some of John Siracusa's articles for further reading.
No, the data is stored in the filesystem. The resource fork is a secondary channel for storing information, very much akin to streams on NTFS.
Resources are generally intended to be non-compiled UI elements, if that makes any sense. So that you can, for example, rewrite the strings used by the program in menus, dialogs, etc. w/o having to mess around with the underlying code or recompile. Thus translators don't have to also be programmers.
While I'm not disputing that there was an entertainment industry at that time, and that there hasn't been one for a very long time... that's kind of silly. IIRC, radio didn't move beyond hobbyists until sometime in the 20's, and only really caught on in the 30's.
Moral-based copyrights are an extraordinarily bad idea. Fortunately no one had been so stupid as to come up with them when the Copyright Clause was established. (in fact, virtually no one had copyrights then either -- the first law having been enacted less than a century prior)
The U.S. has a far superior utilitarian model. Essentially, it permits copyrights to be established if, and only to the extent that, they serve a public good. Moral rights are backwards, in that they promote the interests of the author as an end unto themselves. However, the genius of the framers was that authors should best be treated rather like cattle. (it's worth noting here that for several years I supported myself entirely as an artist)
A dairy farmer is not interested in the well-being of his animals. He doesn't care if they're happy. He cares about milk yield and quality. If pampering the cows will produce sufficient quantities of good milk that it is worthwhile to do so, he will. If not, he won't. Thus the lack of solid gold cowbells.
Likewise, where the public interest in having a body of works that is freely usable in all possible ways, and that concerns as many subjects as the human mind can imagine is served, copyright makes sense. Creating copyright to provide for artists is stupid -- it harms the public interest, and the public doesn't get anything out of it. Creating copyright to encourage artists so as to increase the number of distinct but comprehensible works, and limiting it so as to permit free use, is far better.
If your intentions are to help artists, you'll do the former. (unless you really think about it, and remember that artists are members of the public too, and rely on existing works constantly) If your intentions are to help the public, you'll do the latter.
Copyright's fine -- in moderation, and for the right aims. This is not a concept that meshes with the silly nonsense about moral rights, however. The author of the linked article is using about the worst means possible to try to serve a public interest, and it'll backfire spectacularly.
Slashdot Mirror
One key to designing good UIs is testing. Just follow the scientific method -- Try to find a way to solve some problem, test it out against a wide variety of users, collect lots of data (generally it's a good idea to videotape them, capture what they're doing on the computer, and to ask them some questions), refine your work based on what you've seen, then try again and see if it helped.
Releasing a beta isn't even nearly the same thing, however.
No it's not -- The OS X CLI is barely used, and is not even slightly integrated with the GUI.
I suspect that the 'perfect' combination would be a GUI with a CLI prompt in it that had _GUI_ effects. E.g., type the equivalent of ls (the entire CLI language would have to be created for this integration from scratch, including consistant naming) and a graphical directory window opens; there is no text listing. Or select a bunch of files with a regular expression in the CLI and then move them with the mouse to a different folder.
Apple's done nothing to improve CLIs, and virtually nothing to improve GUIs for years.
Yeah -- I've read stories of people who deliberately tried to burn a Cube. It took a lot of work, but did go in the end.
No, take a good look at his comments. It doesn't keep a polish -- it fogs up. (besides which, the interior of the case isn't all that great... the layout of the internals was pretty classy, I'll admit.
Well, ideally, you could just have a monitor and a CD drive on the desk and the computer stored god knows where. Let the CD run on a long length of Firewire, or perhaps a rather fast ethernet...
I mean, geeze -- what the hell do I need with the CPU being next to me? If the computing resources it provides are available to me it can be in the closet, in the basement, or in the next county for all I care.
Sadly, Steve screwed up in other ways.
He intentionally made the manufacturing of the NeXT Cube difficult, both because he arbitrarily chose to make it out of cast magnesium, and because he didn't allow any cheating no matter how imperceptible.
Worse still, it took a great effort to find paint that would adhere to the magnesium -- ultimately, NeXT had to have consultants from car companies come in to help out... even today, it's a PITA to touch up scratches (easily made) on Cubes.
Hell, you can't even polish the damn things down to the bare metal properly -- it doesn't work nearly so well as actual chrome.
Me, I kind of like the Zebra-striped or Fleckstone painted Macs that popped up once in a while as custom jobs back in the 80's.
Actually the thinking is that it exists in the 'penumbra' of several enumerated rights. The first, third, fourth and fifth amendments all contribute to the notion of the right of privacy, and the ninth is thrown in for good measure.
IIRC this is discussed by the Supreme Court in the Griswold case.
You've never seen the painting L.H.O.O.Q. by Marcel Duchamps, have you? I'd suggest checking it out.
There is of course, NOTHING wrong altering a creative work, insofar as the original is left untouched. Indeed, it is a lovely opportunity to create more art -- art which is a reaction to the original. Or an improvement. Or using it as raw material for satire, parody, or wholly different creative works, e.g. via sampling.
A person who does so probably has great regard for the original creator. After all, they like the work enough to want to put time and effort into revising it, and you don't do that for crap.
But in doing so, they're creating MORE art. Art is a living thing; it doesn't just belong on the wall of a museum, static and untouched.
Really? I just find that a rather overbroad statement. Especially given that at my old job, I did a lot of UI design, and it's a subject that I'm very interested in.
That's not saying much though, is it?
The mouse developed at SRI was the first one in the world. But it was big, heavy, (only started out with one button! gasp!) and didn't even have a rollerball, instead relying on two perpendicular wheels. Likewise the mice developed at Xerox, as well as the ocassional third party mouse, were expensive, fragile, heavy, and broke down constantly.
They were perfectly capable of sucking, despite the fact that they were the only game in town. There's a damn good reason that the mouse developed for the Lisa is pretty much the progenitor for everything that came after; it was actually good.
I hate it when things that could be better are left alone because there's no impetus to improve them. Improvements are typically worthwhile for their own sake, and here there are already complaints!
Again though, I'm not saying there aren't alternatives to the keyboard. But rather that people who _want_ to use _a_ keyboard, apparently are having trouble with that specific keyboard.
Actually, there are objective methods for testing UIs and determining if they actually are useful or not. I mean, certainly the idea seems simple, don't you think? Give ten similar users a task, each with a different UI, and closely observe how they interact with it. The goals are efficiency, ability to learn the UI rapidly (to the degree that it's needed), and not alienating any particular user group unduly.
Follow the standard scientific method. Having tested the hypothesis, revise it according to the data, and test it again. Repeat this cycle of designing according to test results and testing the redesign frequently.
Bruce Tognazzini's books are probably a good introduction to this.
No, the keyboard is NOT fine. If you _do_ want to use it, and it is cumbersome, it means that it is designed poorly.
By analogy: If I want to stop my car, but working the brakes is extremely difficult (perhaps the pedal is located on the passenger side), it is an inane answer to tell me to just not stop. The pedal's in the wrong damn place!
As a rule of thumb, never tell users to not do something that they want to do but are prevented from it unless it is a _literal_ impossibility. Clearly, it's important to them. Clearly, they're the ones paying for it. Clearly the design must follow _their_ wants and needs. This is like rule number one in UI design.
The program such as you describe is creating new works. However, these works are so derivative, and produced so mechanistically, that such production could, under some circumstances, be infringement, even though it's a new work. It's not a sufficiently original work.
However, a work is NOT composed of a bunch of ideas strung together. An idea is just that -- it is the impetus behind a work, but it's not the work itself.
For example, here is an idea: A vigilante fights crime, relying on fear and an imposing appearance. This is quite generic, and totally unworthy of protection. (and in fact, if you read Campbell's "The Hero of a Thousand Faces," or whatever it's called, you'll start to notice how few original ideas there really are) This could easily be the idea behind Batman. But it applies just as well towards the Shadow. Or Spawn. Or, in a kind of weird way, Lethargic Lad.
If we considered it worthy of protection for the first originator of this (which could go as far back as what, Zorro... earlier even, given that that was based on Robin Hood?) it would totally screw over all the people who came along later. And the only common thread is such a widely applicable idea that it's nonsensical to prohibit their using it!
Anyway, so while it certainly seems likely that ideas can serve as the inspiration for later ideas, who really cares? Neither the new NOR old ideas are protected. I can make cartoons about a mischevious rabbit in wacky situations to my heart's content. I don't need to come up with a new idea... the old one will suffice. It only matters that the resultant work is not derivative of the old _work_.
And I mean this here -- no one owns rights to ideas. And no one need cite, although certainly it's nice of them to do so, or might be required by certain circumstances extraneous to this discussion (e.g. school policy). Nor need payment be made.
Regarding WHY this should be so, which is the underlying theory behind copyright, I'll try to get to posting later. (it's pretty late) Or you could look for some of my posts from when I've discussed this before. You'll know it when you see it -- it's really lengthy. (sorry)
But that's just not so. You're not being imaginative enough, and that's what I'm calling you on. The notion that there is nothing new under the sun is an old one. Personally, as an artist, I've always liked what Picasso said: "Great artists steal." There's a decent story by Spider Robinson with this concept as its theme, here.
I haven't been saying that you lack some necessary ability to think of these things properly -- just that you haven't been. I could say that you still aren't, but you aren't really addressing the substantive issue at this point. When you'd like to, feel free -- I'll be here.
Lastly, and I hate to harp on this, but what the hell, what you said wrt my
That's not entirely accurate. While it is true that my post was (very, very briefly) copyrighted, it was the post, and not the general idea (roughly that there are limits to copyright and damn good reasons for them) that was copyrighted.
But what's key is the last point, which is wrong. I'd be more than happy to accept honors or money based on the content of my posts. Anyone that would care to make a donation is more than welcome to do so. I just don't demand it.
In fact, I could just as easily retain the copyright and yet refuse to accept any compensation, and (rather greedily) keep it all to myself. This is, for better or worse, a valid option. Copyright is, ultimately, about copying. The things you mention are factors, but are slightly tangental to the central issue.
I mention this because I feel there's nothing wrong with a bit of recapping, if only for posterity, and that it might help someone learn something, after all.
Now then, perhaps you'd like to return to your actual argument?
What's wrong with this?
I think that you are being too enamored of the idea that originality is essential. It is important, and to a degree, it can be good, don't get me wrong. But there is also value in variation; in modifying, perhaps only in small ways, a familiar concept or work. It allows us to closely examine the familiar, its details highlighted by the variation. It allows us to make fun, as in parodies or satires. It allows us to explore alternatives to the original story, e.g. what would have happened in Star Wars if Luke had joined Darth Vader in ESB?
These are all valuable. Indeed, the majority of our cultural history has consisted of variation on existing works. This dates back from oral traditions, has notable adherents, such as Shakespeare, and continues today with retellings of works no longer copyrighted (see Disney) or of fan fiction (of which there is certainly a notable quantity regarding Batman, and I would bet that some of which is superior to anything done by DC Comics).
At any rate, it's fun to see how your position is shifting... First you said "By creating new works from other idea's, you must pay for those ideas." But then you've apparently retracted that, saying " 'Sampling, collage, works that are homages to other works, retellings, reactions, satires, parodies' These are all original works, inspired from someone else's ideas."
A retelling of the same idea is not an original work by anyone's definition -- it is derivative -- and it NECESSARILY re-uses the same ideas.
Sorry, but I think the personal attack is warranted. You don't understand the difference between an idea and a work. The former is utterly unprotectable. The latter _may_ be to an extent, but never absolutely. Your notion that ideas are either protected or that it is desirable to do so, save for in a moral sense, is unfounded. It is your own words that damn you at this juncture.
Piracy is a different kettle of fish... but not so different. A blatantly derivative work, such as ripping a song to an mp3 is not protected. An original work, such as a new song that is a reaction to the earlier one is. Sampling the former as a sort of 'instrument' for use in the latter, quoting from the lyrics, reusing the ocassional passage of music... these occupy a grey area. Certainly those with something to lose have argued strenuously that they are not to be protected.
But this is secondary to the real question of whether or not it is worthwhile. Originality carried to its logical extreme is nigh-impossible and highly undesirable. Indeed, copyrights just for the benefit of artists are poorly thought out and not constitutional in the U.S. The social benefit is invariably of upmost importance, and is served by dedication to original works, derivative works and outright piracy, each in their measure. (here I posit that piracy means the unauthorized copying of works, regardless of the copyright status of the work, for it was originally used in this sense before the invention of copyright) Piracy, after all, promotes the survivability of works, their continued use and relevance in culture, their use as fodder for new derivative works, and especially today holds the potential of widespread low-cost dissemination.
I wouldn't advocate piracy to the detriment of society, but where it is beneficial, how could it be sensible not to do so?
(And incidentally -- the only time during which my posts are copyrighted is a brief span while I am actually typing them. Please note my
Freedom as an artist is very nearly unlimited as a consequence of the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. Furthermore, one of the (but not the only) goals of the Copyright Clause is to stimulate the creation of artistic works. When it actually diminishes the number of works being created, it has clearly failed on its own merits!
Additionally, once the copyright controlling Batman (which AFAIK tends to diminish the trademark as a matter of course, for trademark law mustn't interefere with the more important purpose of placing the character, stories, etc. into the public domain as dictated by the Constitution) no one is really going to give a flying fuck what D.C. Comics thinks. They'll have had their time and they'll be satisfied with it. At such time, no one will control Batman, just as no one today controls fairy tales, or myths, to great public benefit.
As far as plagarism goes, it is no doubt, legal. It's not _good_, and you can get in trouble with people who believed you hadn't been plagarizing, but it's not illegal, unless it rises to the level of copyright infringement which is a different kettle of fish. (copyright is necessarily unconcerned with ideas -- originality of ideas is unimportant, only originality -- to a certain extent -- of expression. Plagarism is concerned with both.)
But besides which, you're very small-minded. Virtually all creative works are based upon prior works to some extent. Originality is hard and rare. This is moreso, the smaller a thing you consider a work to be. For example, I didn't coin a single word in this post. Does this mean that it's good, because it promotes communication, or is it bad because it harms the fortunes of word-coiners, who will not place much effort into their trade if uncompensated for it.
Sampling, collage, works that are homages to other works, retellings, reactions, satires, parodies... I can see they mean nothing to you. Money drives you -- not art, and not the betterment of society.
Good thing you're not in charge.
No, because that would be insane.
Firstly, because if the plane were shot down as it approached, the debris would still hit _something_. New York is known for, amazingly enough, having more buildings than just those two.
Secondly, because having such things and being willing to use them would surely lead to a disasterous accident. After all -- the builders could conceive of a 707 that was lost in the fog at low altitude, and in fact, such things have happened before (the WWII bomber that crashed into the Empire State Building due to poor visibility). Are you willing to shoot down anyone that strays too close, even if it is both an innocent mistake and one that hasn't yet passed a point of no return where the plane cannot avoid hitting something?
What a stupid mentality, to think of such a thing. (which, incidentally, didn't work -- the White House is reputed to have SAMs available, yet a light plane was deliberately crashed into the grounds in the 90's)
Ah, no, you misunderstand me.
I mean each file located on the disk has a GUID for purposes of locating the file on the disk, regardless of the name or path of the file.
This meant that it was exceedingly rare for aliases on MacOS to 'break' because the original file (if present on disk) couldn't be found. It was in fact very difficult to arrange matters so that the file couldn't be found.
I'm not referring to other types of metadata such as file type or creator, as would be implied by MIME.
Sigh. You obviously haven't tried this, or considered it much.
Let's consider me: I have a group of html files that I need to develop and maintain. Ergo, the default associated program is a text editor, because I spend most of my time editing the files.
However, I also have a group of html files, and plain text files that I like to open in a web browser, which are static text, and never, ever change. This is because they're novels and short stories -- an editing program is definately not what I want to open them with, because it's not as good for reading as a browser.
So what the hell do I do?
Either waste time explicitly dragging or opening via a menu or dialog the former group of work files, or the latter group of lesiure files?
If I can arbitrarily set each file, which are identical in terms of format, to open in the program that is proper for it, I will save myself a damn lot of time and trouble.
File associations are the only way I've heard of to do it.
And because they're ALTERABLE, easily so, and ignorable, you can still open files set for RealPlayer in anything else, and have it (or a daemon) automatically change them to henceforth open automatically with that program.
Give it a shot before you condemn it!
Well, I seem to recall that it didn't have GUIDs for the files, as HFS and HFS+ do, to their great advantage.
Paths and filenames aren't reliable enough. A more stable and user-invisible method of identifying files internally is better.
No one said you can't use extensions for your own convenience! If names are totally arbitrary and flexible, you can _still_ name a file foo.txt if you want.
It just is ignored by the computer if a more accurate source of that information is available, e.g. a MIME type set by the last app to edit the file, which is more informative, e.g. text/plain; charset=unicode.
If this information _isn't_ provided, it can be attempted to be gathered by several means, all of which might be tried in turn. If the suffix matches, a temporary (because it isn't perfectly certain) metadata descriptor might be attached. It might be analyzed by the computer using the magic number system under Unix. The user might be asked if he knows the first time he attempts to open it. Or an opening program might recognize it and explicitly save it with this information.
Furthermore, there's nothing preventing there from being an OPTIONAL setting that would append suffixes to apps based upon the true metadata.
Suffixes in the file name are about the suckiest thing that ever sucked suck... if they're where type metadata is chiefly stored and looked for. As an option for people that enjoy 'em, no one is saying that they should be eliminated. No one.
I'd suggest reading some of John Siracusa's articles for further reading.
No, the data is stored in the filesystem. The resource fork is a secondary channel for storing information, very much akin to streams on NTFS.
Resources are generally intended to be non-compiled UI elements, if that makes any sense. So that you can, for example, rewrite the strings used by the program in menus, dialogs, etc. w/o having to mess around with the underlying code or recompile. Thus translators don't have to also be programmers.
Radio programs?
While I'm not disputing that there was an entertainment industry at that time, and that there hasn't been one for a very long time... that's kind of silly. IIRC, radio didn't move beyond hobbyists until sometime in the 20's, and only really caught on in the 30's.
Moral-based copyrights are an extraordinarily bad idea. Fortunately no one had been so stupid as to come up with them when the Copyright Clause was established. (in fact, virtually no one had copyrights then either -- the first law having been enacted less than a century prior)
The U.S. has a far superior utilitarian model. Essentially, it permits copyrights to be established if, and only to the extent that, they serve a public good. Moral rights are backwards, in that they promote the interests of the author as an end unto themselves. However, the genius of the framers was that authors should best be treated rather like cattle. (it's worth noting here that for several years I supported myself entirely as an artist)
A dairy farmer is not interested in the well-being of his animals. He doesn't care if they're happy. He cares about milk yield and quality. If pampering the cows will produce sufficient quantities of good milk that it is worthwhile to do so, he will. If not, he won't. Thus the lack of solid gold cowbells.
Likewise, where the public interest in having a body of works that is freely usable in all possible ways, and that concerns as many subjects as the human mind can imagine is served, copyright makes sense. Creating copyright to provide for artists is stupid -- it harms the public interest, and the public doesn't get anything out of it. Creating copyright to encourage artists so as to increase the number of distinct but comprehensible works, and limiting it so as to permit free use, is far better.
If your intentions are to help artists, you'll do the former. (unless you really think about it, and remember that artists are members of the public too, and rely on existing works constantly) If your intentions are to help the public, you'll do the latter.
Copyright's fine -- in moderation, and for the right aims. This is not a concept that meshes with the silly nonsense about moral rights, however. The author of the linked article is using about the worst means possible to try to serve a public interest, and it'll backfire spectacularly.