"Finally a smart license... Open Source, but if you want binary or commercial, here are my terms... That lets the developer play nice with Open Source, but gives those that don't want to be nice to Open Source an avenue to buy, thus letting the developer playing nicer with Open Source..."
That's not what this is. It could sort of become that, but it is not.
First, CC licenses are not recommended for code. I think the still recommend the GPL for that.
Second, I think this is only for their licenses with NC terms, so it is definitely not akin to Free or Open Source Software.
If they make the same deal for their BY-SA license, that would be closer to what you speak of, but just not recommended for software. I for one, hope they do this with BY-SA.
"You don't view it as doing harm. The authors who want recognition for their work do. And copyright law is on their side."
Perhaps a simple way to figure harm is this:
Number of downloaded / distributed copies X cost to send proper attribution documents to all people receiving copies with missing attribution. (plus research costs to determine who they are?)
"No, the copyright system isn't broken. Copyright has worked well for over 200 years in this country. (The patent system is another story). Now laws like the DMCA that criminalize what would otherwise be legitimate acts...that's broken."
Yes it is broken. At least in my view. Now the people who pushed to get it "fixed" didn't think it was working as it worked 200 years ago and so to "fix" a working system that they deemed broken, they broke it. (Well, lobbied for the changes which broke it.)
Or do you maintain that the system in place today is unchanged from the one 200 years ago?
Let's put forward some good, wild proposals of our own. Proposals that would scare them out of their skins if they were to be passed. Ones we can back off of slightly and still make progress towards our goals. So that when a compromise is reached, the world will be slightly better rather than the worse they shoot for.
"Nokia's recommendation for Codec Choices for normative reference by W3C Considering our requirements, we believe the widespread use of technically competitive, but not necessarily "free" open standards, such as H.264 for video and AAC for audio, would serve the community best. This would be fully aligned with the business model dominant in the digital video ecosystem."
and
"Anything beyond that, including a W3C-lead standardization of a "free" codec, or the active endorsement of proprietary technology such as Ogg,..., by W3C, is, in our opinion, not helpful for the co-existence of the two ecosystems (web and video), and therefore not our choice."
So they are cool with non-gratis "open standards" like AAC, but Ogg is proprietary. I need a better explanation if they are not do disappoint me greatly.
Not a problem. Never too late, and if I came across to sharp, please don't think it was intended that way.
I also understand that these guys are seen by many as the good guys. Fine. I understand that a lot of people like to tell others how business operates. Well, business men can operate how they like within the bounds of the law, but a Free Market takes buyers as well as sellers. Us buyers have a say in the game as well.
We don't have to put up with shoddy treatment while there exist alternatives. And even if there should be no alternatives due to some mucking about with the Free of the Free Market, we can do without non-necessary things. I know that may sound odd in this day and age, but it is the way things are.
We can say what we will buy and what we will not buy as well. It is then up to the sellers to figure out if they can make a profit providing what we want.
You should be asking yourself "Is the information they provide worth $xx a month to me?" If it is, sign up. If it's not, go with someone else."
I will decide who to do business with based on what I like thank you very much.
I might very well chose to not go with the guys providing the best deal because I know they are jerks or I know they are actively trying to ruin my community or any other number of reasons besides the simple is this the best price I can get for this item and is this worth it.
One type of people I try to avoid is people who try and stick it to me. If I judge this to be a case of that as far as I am concerned, I will possibly choose to not take the deal. Or if I do take it, I might be ready to jump ship at the first decent opportunity.
You, of course, are free to make your buying decisions based on your metrics.
"You're making the mistake of assuming market prices should be production costs plus a flat fixed percentage, no other factors involved."
Where did I ever make any such claim?
"The print version gets you dead trees issues which last as long as the dead trees last. But only the issues put out since you subscribed.
The online version gets you access to their database of past reviews."
Here you make a good point which might make me reconsider the deal. Congrats, the first one to try and make a case based on a benefit to me. That is who the Free Market figures I will consider when making my purchase decisions after all.
On the other hand, if I get the print version, I have it as long as I choose to keep it. What protection do they give should they close up shop or change the terms on past article access?
"Why do you assume that publications are priced on a cost-plus basis?"
Why do you assume I assume that? I don't.
But as a customer who is also a business man and who comes from a couple generations of the same, I can decide where to take my business based on the parameters I decide on.
Their pricing model would sway me not to do business with them. Do you take issue with my right or any other potential customer's right to use such information in making their buying decisions?
I do not take issue with yours. It is your money, spend it as you see fit.
Is there another reason to charge as much for the online version as for the print version when, admittedly, their costs are less for the online customers.
If I were an "about to commit" customer, and I have thought about becoming one recently, this would put me off, I would like a good share of the savings passed on to me.
One simple solution:
Print subscription comes with (either a CD version or) an online account, online version is stand alone.
I am sure there must be better possibilities. But if they're happy...
"You are simply never going to protect all the stupid people from themselves, and making the effort often only punishes the smart people who didn't make those mistakes."
Not really, you run into the problem of network effects. Which are very similar to what some have been saying on this topic. People who get sick with a communicable disease put you at risk as well as themselves.
People who buy junk instead of quality at the same price reduce the price of the junk and raise the price of the quality and now your costs go up, assuming you would have bought quality and not junk.
No man is an island and all that. Every thing is deeply intertwingled...
"I mean you work in a given industry doing a given job, if you move companies chances are your going to be doing the same or a similar job because thats where your skill set lies."
Hey! You wanna join the band as drummer? Sure, here, sign this non-compete.
You mean I can't work as a drummer anywhere for 5 years if you kick me out of the band or if it doesn't work out and I leave?
"I think that's an excellent idea. Just getting the word out that there are other valid systems..."
Cool, I tend to talk a fair bit myself, but I think actually using alternate systems in day to day situations might make a bigger impact with people in their guts.
Slashdot Mirror
"I've always wondered why such an approach is so underused, as it combines the best of both worlds"
As a first guess, I think it might be that to fairly take advantage of community leverage, would result in a very complicated setup.
Anyone have any ideas on how to put a simple system together to handle such a thing?
all the best,
drew
"Finally a smart license... Open Source, but if you want binary or commercial, here are my terms... That lets the developer play nice with Open Source, but gives those that don't want to be nice to Open Source an avenue to buy, thus letting the developer playing nicer with Open Source..."
That's not what this is. It could sort of become that, but it is not.
First, CC licenses are not recommended for code. I think the still recommend the GPL for that.
Second, I think this is only for their licenses with NC terms, so it is definitely not akin to Free or Open Source Software.
If they make the same deal for their BY-SA license, that would be closer to what you speak of, but just not recommended for software. I for one, hope they do this with BY-SA.
all the best,
drew
Perhaps conflict of interest? Improper product tying?
all the best,
drew
"The BBC could have used something like Ogg Theora, but then 95% of users would have had to download and install something to play it."
Except that if you suddenly have millions of people wanting it to "just work" it may soon just work.
This is a cart and horse problem to be sure, but it will not hurt in the long run for public funds to be used for the benefit of the public.
I also have a feeling that the need to "protect" the "content" drives a lot of these decisions.
all the best,
drew
"You don't view it as doing harm. The authors who want recognition for their work do. And copyright law is on their side."
Perhaps a simple way to figure harm is this:
Number of downloaded / distributed copies X cost to send proper attribution documents to all people receiving copies with missing attribution. (plus research costs to determine who they are?)
all the best,
drew
Good thing you left out number nine or you might have gotten a C & D from the fab four...
all the best,
drew
"No, the copyright system isn't broken. Copyright has worked well for over 200 years in this country. (The patent system is another story). Now laws like the DMCA that criminalize what would otherwise be legitimate acts...that's broken."
Yes it is broken. At least in my view. Now the people who pushed to get it "fixed" didn't think it was working as it worked 200 years ago and so to "fix" a working system that they deemed broken, they broke it. (Well, lobbied for the changes which broke it.)
Or do you maintain that the system in place today is unchanged from the one 200 years ago?
all the best,
drew
BINGO! MOD PARENT UP!
And until we decide to play the same game, I would suggest in a less sleazy way though, they are going to keep getting progress with this ploy.
So...
Some thoughts on a "Copyright Offensive"
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2007/04/some-thoughts-on-copyright-offensive.html
Let's put forward some good, wild proposals of our own. Proposals that would scare them out of their skins if they were to be passed. Ones we can back off of slightly and still make progress towards our goals. So that when a compromise is reached, the world will be slightly better rather than the worse they shoot for.
all the best,
drew
You know, I was beginning to seriously getting one of those for myself and then I run into this:
..., by W3C, is, in our
'Nokia Claims Ogg Format is "Proprietary"'
See:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/09/2045200
From the pdf:
"Nokia's recommendation for Codec Choices for normative reference by W3C
Considering our requirements, we believe the widespread use of technically
competitive, but not necessarily "free" open standards, such as H.264 for video and
AAC for audio, would serve the community best. This would be fully aligned with the
business model dominant in the digital video ecosystem."
and
"Anything beyond that, including a W3C-lead standardization of a "free" codec, or the
active endorsement of proprietary technology such as Ogg,
opinion, not helpful for the co-existence of the two ecosystems (web and video), and
therefore not our choice."
So they are cool with non-gratis "open standards" like AAC, but Ogg is proprietary. I need a better explanation if they are not do disappoint me greatly.
all the best,
drew
Not a problem. Never too late, and if I came across to sharp, please don't think it was intended that way.
I also understand that these guys are seen by many as the good guys. Fine. I understand that a lot of people like to tell others how business operates. Well, business men can operate how they like within the bounds of the law, but a Free Market takes buyers as well as sellers. Us buyers have a say in the game as well.
We don't have to put up with shoddy treatment while there exist alternatives. And even if there should be no alternatives due to some mucking about with the Free of the Free Market, we can do without non-necessary things. I know that may sound odd in this day and age, but it is the way things are.
We can say what we will buy and what we will not buy as well. It is then up to the sellers to figure out if they can make a profit providing what we want.
all the best,
drew
Well, I must say, you do the best job of making a case why I should take the deal they offer.
In your estimation, the online deal is more valuable than the print deal? Do you see any drawbacks vis a vis the print deal?
all the best,
drew
"I think you're going about it all wrong.
You should be asking yourself "Is the information they provide worth $xx a month to me?" If it is, sign up. If it's not, go with someone else."
I will decide who to do business with based on what I like thank you very much.
I might very well chose to not go with the guys providing the best deal because I know they are jerks or I know they are actively trying to ruin my community or any other number of reasons besides the simple is this the best price I can get for this item and is this worth it.
One type of people I try to avoid is people who try and stick it to me. If I judge this to be a case of that as far as I am concerned, I will possibly choose to not take the deal. Or if I do take it, I might be ready to jump ship at the first decent opportunity.
You, of course, are free to make your buying decisions based on your metrics.
all the best,
drew
"You're making the mistake of assuming market prices should be production costs plus a flat fixed percentage, no other factors involved."
Where did I ever make any such claim?
"The print version gets you dead trees issues which last as long as the dead trees last. But only the issues put out since you subscribed.
The online version gets you access to their database of past reviews."
Here you make a good point which might make me reconsider the deal. Congrats, the first one to try and make a case based on a benefit to me. That is who the Free Market figures I will consider when making my purchase decisions after all.
On the other hand, if I get the print version, I have it as long as I choose to keep it. What protection do they give should they close up shop or change the terms on past article access?
all the best,
drew
"Ok, how about $10 per month, but you can only access each article once?"
Why in the world would you go for that deal? I wouldn't. Does the print version come with any such restriction?
all the best,
drew
"Why do you assume that publications are priced on a cost-plus basis?"
Why do you assume I assume that? I don't.
But as a customer who is also a business man and who comes from a couple generations of the same, I can decide where to take my business based on the parameters I decide on.
Their pricing model would sway me not to do business with them. Do you take issue with my right or any other potential customer's right to use such information in making their buying decisions?
I do not take issue with yours. It is your money, spend it as you see fit.
all the best,
drew
"Dr I. C. Clearly
Patently Obvious Research Labs Inc.
Bermuda."
Dude! I think you need to build some triangulation coefficients into your funding requests and into your proposed studies.
all the best,
drew
"So, why do you keep giving it to them?"
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/08/1414258
Gene Found to Explain Repeated Mistakes ???
all the best,
drew
Is there another reason to charge as much for the online version as for the print version when, admittedly, their costs are less for the online customers.
If I were an "about to commit" customer, and I have thought about becoming one recently, this would put me off, I would like a good share of the savings passed on to me.
One simple solution:
Print subscription comes with (either a CD version or) an online account, online version is stand alone.
I am sure there must be better possibilities. But if they're happy...
all the best,
drew
Surely you jest!
In the future, the tolerant will tolerate the intolerant.
all the best,
drew
While you are at it, why not suggest some alternate copyright laws. We can fix it, shall we?
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2007/04/some-thoughts-on-copyright-offensive.html
Sorry for the double post, forgot to include the link in the first.
all the best,
drew
While you are at it, why not suggest some alternate copyright laws. We can fix it, shall we?
all the best,
drew
"Then they will have to change it to One Virus Per Child."
How in the world are they gonna improve things that much? ~;-)
all the best,
drew
"You are simply never going to protect all the stupid people from themselves, and making the effort often only punishes the smart people who didn't make those mistakes."
Not really, you run into the problem of network effects. Which are very similar to what some have been saying on this topic. People who get sick with a communicable disease put you at risk as well as themselves.
People who buy junk instead of quality at the same price reduce the price of the junk and raise the price of the quality and now your costs go up, assuming you would have bought quality and not junk.
No man is an island and all that. Every thing is deeply intertwingled...
all the best,
drew
"I mean you work in a given industry doing a given job, if you move companies chances are your going to be doing the same or a similar job because thats where your skill set lies."
Hey! You wanna join the band as drummer? Sure, here, sign this non-compete.
You mean I can't work as a drummer anywhere for 5 years if you kick me out of the band or if it doesn't work out and I leave?
Right! Everyone does it!
all the best,
drew
"I think that's an excellent idea. Just getting the word out that there are other valid systems..."
Cool, I tend to talk a fair bit myself, but I think actually using alternate systems in day to day situations might make a bigger impact with people in their guts.
all the best,
drew