The ongoing industry attempts to carpet bomb technology (especially P2P) will continue to make it harder and harder to work outside the sponsored music industry.
Think, if all P2P networks are outlawed then how does a small garage band get their first album out? TCPA controls could severely limit the ability to create, edit, and publish music on a PC in the first place (all theoretical of course).
It would be interesting to see how many DMCA take down orders would get filed if you ran a huge P2P server with only free music on it.
The money is in banks and short term investments. The problem is the short term part of that. The investments that MS undertakes with these funds are aimed at keeping that money liquid so it can be accessed quickly and with little delay.
Actually the best material about the MS house was written back when Bill G's new home was nearing completion. I particularly liked the furniture stacker. There wasn't enough space in the room for all of the furniture so it was stacked in the corner. You'd unstack what you needed and stack it back up when done. The other was when the toilet backed up. Everyone had to exit the house and then reboot the water main from the street and then go back in the house and use the toilet.
I realize that I wasn't anywhere near accurate with the GPL-house I was just going for a little humor/irony. We'll have to submit that new tag to the W3C to make things like that more obvious.
The first problem is that you wouldn't be able to close the door. Anyone could walk in and build on a new addition (though they'd have to post the floorplans for it outside so all can see).
Actually, Gentoo house is a forest. Compile the lumber yourself.
I wonder how far into the absurd we can descend with this thread.
There's probably many a hair stylist who would agree with you: "But sometimes the devil is in those split hairs" (sorry)
I'll agree that we definitely need to remove the emotion from the debate. (Though chanting "Rosen is the anti-Christ" can be quite cathartic.) The real problem is that the fear-mongering and emotional argument is being spearheaded by the RIAA. (Of course the MPAA's Valenti with his now famous Boston Strangler comment still leads the charge.)
Trespassing is probably a closer analogy, but it still misses the point. In that case the property is still being consumed exclusively by one person (the owner or the trepasser) rather than both sharing with no diminishment of value. That is the thing about an idea. I can share it with you and it still retains its original value to me or maybe even gains more if you combine it with another idea.
At some point, won't the artists have to treat recordings as simply free advertising for their concert tours... Nothing more?
Currently artists treat recordings as way to go into indentured servitude for the recording company who "hires" them. Frankly if recordings were simply free there'd probably be a lot of happy artists out there (including TLC as an example).
English is such an imprecise language for all of this after all.
I would however cringe at the comparison of a copyright and a patent. Copyrights cover the individual creative work and have some significant limitations (fair use, satire, research, etc.). Patents cover processes and can even keep you from achieving a goal using a completely different approach (looking at things like the by-now infamous One-Click patent).
The original point remains that the sale of IP has no limitations like the sale of real property and thus shouldn't be mixed together with it. When you sell a piece of land you do not retain ANY control of it. Meanwhile, you can sell/license IP and both restrict what the user can do with the IP you sold them (including resale rights) and also sell that very same piece of "property" to someone else for completely different terms.
Your RSA example brings in a whole other can of worms. Imagine if all of the base math equations, principles, and theories had been given the same IP protection as the RSA encryption equations. Think about having to license multiplication, addition, differentials, etc. If not for the commons provided by the original thinkers in the field of mathematics would there be the RSA equations that exist now? (I realize that's a bit of a straw man but it should give one pause for thought.)
As more and more people try to put up "fences" around IP the more limited our capabilities to push the fringes of science become.
You'd need two separate memory supplies, two separate clocks, independent busses, two graphics cards too probably...
The problem is that the two cpu's use such wildly incompatible hardware throughout the whole system as to make it impossible.
On the OS side I don't want to think how you'd deal with the different speeds and signalling challenges. Think about when Apple had their Windows PC on a board that you could add into a PowerPC box. You needed to supply it with its own memory and everything. They just captured the VGA output and rerouted it for display by the internal system.
AMD's participation in the market is what makes the current generation of x68 CPU's commodities. Remember the prices you used to pay for Intel CPU's before AMD became a viable competitor?
Work is well under way on Win64, but in Microsoft's ideal world, almost no-one will write to the Win64 API - they'll target the CLR, which itself will be 64-bit native.
Umm, the CLR is for.Net not for writing native apps. That would be like expecting everyone to write their native applications using Java.
I wouldn't like to see a CLR that was designed down to a level to allow things like DiskKeeper to work.
I buy Intel because their chips and chipsets are rock solid stable
That's funny. I recall Intel being in the recalled motherboard of the month club recently. Between all of the problems that they were having with RDRAM and then with their SDRAM bridge chips things were getting really ugly.
Frankly, AMD's use of the Alpha's bus architecture for their dual-processor boxes makes them much more attractive. Dedicated memory bandwidth for each CPU is a nice thing. (It would be nice to see them scale up to 4 and 8 way boxes however.)
We've got a Beowulf cluster of dual-AMD boxes and the thing just cranks out the calculations.
You can sell your IP more than once. In fact, you can even give your IP away and still sell it to boot.
Look at the Qt toolkit. You can either use an Open Source license and include it in anything you write with an Open Source license. Thus the IP is being "given away".
However, if you don't want to open source your work then you can go and buy the Qt IP and include it that way.
Remember, with IP you have two separate issues. The first is ownership also known as copyright. The second is the licensing of that IP. You can sell your IP licenses to as many people as you want. You can even give it away free to one person and sell it to another. There is no limit to what you can do.
There are numerous ways to frame the IP violation discussion. I was originally objecting to the notion that the Property aspect of IP should be emphasized. I was merely showing how if we extended the current limitations that are put on IP onto real property how absurd they would seem.
How can you sell property more than once?
on
NARAS vs. the RIAA
·
· Score: 1
This is why "IP" isn't property. Think about it. If I sold one acre of land to two people I'd wind up in jail.
Or, say I sold you my car but included a set of rules saying that only you can drive it, you'll have to pay me extra if you want to bring passengers, and you can't sell it to anyone else when you're done using it. (And oh yeah, even if the thing is a defective POS when I sold it to you, tough!)
Do you really think we'd all sit and quietly accept the terms we get for most IP if we were buying real property?
Guess I should have left the 's' off of the query. Reading the two descriptions certainly doesn't give any impression of "a worm worse than Code Red" however. Heck, it only achieves worm status by looking for machines that have already been SubSeven trojaned.
If anything, this would tend to lend more credence to the "giant snowjob" label for this article.
(Actually, the whole thing read like a bad CSI script.)
Ye gads that was horrible. This has to be my favorite bit of hyperbole: Worms were the most vicious new beasts to stalk the Internet.
I think Morris would have a few words of disagreement about that.
So, we have a section: Early July.
Then the next section: Second Week of July which starts Weeks passed.
And, to top it all off we go over to McAfee and search and get the following: Search Results We found no records matching the following criteria: Virus name containing "leaves".
Slashdot Mirror
The ongoing industry attempts to carpet bomb technology (especially P2P) will continue to make it harder and harder to work outside the sponsored music industry.
Think, if all P2P networks are outlawed then how does a small garage band get their first album out? TCPA controls could severely limit the ability to create, edit, and publish music on a PC in the first place (all theoretical of course).
It would be interesting to see how many DMCA take down orders would get filed if you ran a huge P2P server with only free music on it.
Actually, step 3 is vulnerable to a buffer overflow and that gets you to step 4. (And we all now how that gets you to MS's profit. :-D )
I wonder if the professors at CIA have the same lament when all their students are expecting to be James Bond.
What's the great attraction of watching cars going at it? :-D
The money is in banks and short term investments. The problem is the short term part of that. The investments that MS undertakes with these funds are aimed at keeping that money liquid so it can be accessed quickly and with little delay.
Of course, I have a GeForce4 VC, but look, it's not a religion or anything.
:-D
We will now have to flog you about the head and shoulders with an ISA-bus Hercules Graphics card.
Apparently all those Kingdom Halls that they've built simply are impossible.
We wouldn't have to worry about rocket ships ruining the nice blue sky. :-D
Instead of OT3H shouldn't it be OTGH? Let's see all of those "The Mote in God's Eye" readers chime in with the decipherment. :-D
Actually the best material about the MS house was written back when Bill G's new home was nearing completion. I particularly liked the furniture stacker. There wasn't enough space in the room for all of the furniture so it was stacked in the corner. You'd unstack what you needed and stack it back up when done. The other was when the toilet backed up. Everyone had to exit the house and then reboot the water main from the street and then go back in the house and use the toilet.
I realize that I wasn't anywhere near accurate with the GPL-house I was just going for a little humor/irony. We'll have to submit that new tag to the W3C to make things like that more obvious.
The first problem is that you wouldn't be able to close the door. Anyone could walk in and build on a new addition (though they'd have to post the floorplans for it outside so all can see).
Actually, Gentoo house is a forest. Compile the lumber yourself.
I wonder how far into the absurd we can descend with this thread.
If the thing went bad do you really want to be looking through Unix Core dumps from it to debug it? :-}
There's probably many a hair stylist who would agree with you: "But sometimes the devil is in those split hairs" (sorry)
I'll agree that we definitely need to remove the emotion from the debate. (Though chanting "Rosen is the anti-Christ" can be quite cathartic.) The real problem is that the fear-mongering and emotional argument is being spearheaded by the RIAA. (Of course the MPAA's Valenti with his now famous Boston Strangler comment still leads the charge.)
Trespassing is probably a closer analogy, but it still misses the point. In that case the property is still being consumed exclusively by one person (the owner or the trepasser) rather than both sharing with no diminishment of value. That is the thing about an idea. I can share it with you and it still retains its original value to me or maybe even gains more if you combine it with another idea.
Man, you've got quite a career ahead of you in Thesaurus writing. :-D
So, I applaud your efforts, were you able to do this off the cuff or did you have to go to a thesauras for some of your punditry?
At some point, won't the artists have to treat recordings as simply free advertising for their concert tours... Nothing more?
Currently artists treat recordings as way to go into indentured servitude for the recording company who "hires" them. Frankly if recordings were simply free there'd probably be a lot of happy artists out there (including TLC as an example).
English is such an imprecise language for all of this after all.
I would however cringe at the comparison of a copyright and a patent. Copyrights cover the individual creative work and have some significant limitations (fair use, satire, research, etc.). Patents cover processes and can even keep you from achieving a goal using a completely different approach (looking at things like the by-now infamous One-Click patent).
The original point remains that the sale of IP has no limitations like the sale of real property and thus shouldn't be mixed together with it. When you sell a piece of land you do not retain ANY control of it. Meanwhile, you can sell/license IP and both restrict what the user can do with the IP you sold them (including resale rights) and also sell that very same piece of "property" to someone else for completely different terms.
Your RSA example brings in a whole other can of worms. Imagine if all of the base math equations, principles, and theories had been given the same IP protection as the RSA encryption equations. Think about having to license multiplication, addition, differentials, etc. If not for the commons provided by the original thinkers in the field of mathematics would there be the RSA equations that exist now? (I realize that's a bit of a straw man but it should give one pause for thought.)
As more and more people try to put up "fences" around IP the more limited our capabilities to push the fringes of science become.
you can get a 2.4GHz P4 that's so fast you can write Quake 3 in interpreted Smalltalk and it runs like lightning
:-D
Sounds almost like a challenge.
You'd need two separate memory supplies, two separate clocks, independent busses, two graphics cards too probably...
The problem is that the two cpu's use such wildly incompatible hardware throughout the whole system as to make it impossible.
On the OS side I don't want to think how you'd deal with the different speeds and signalling challenges. Think about when Apple had their Windows PC on a board that you could add into a PowerPC box. You needed to supply it with its own memory and everything. They just captured the VGA output and rerouted it for display by the internal system.
AMD's participation in the market is what makes the current generation of x68 CPU's commodities. Remember the prices you used to pay for Intel CPU's before AMD became a viable competitor?
Work is well under way on Win64, but in Microsoft's ideal world, almost no-one will write to the Win64 API - they'll target the CLR, which itself will be 64-bit native.
.Net not for writing native apps. That would be like expecting everyone to write their native applications using Java.
Umm, the CLR is for
I wouldn't like to see a CLR that was designed down to a level to allow things like DiskKeeper to work.
I buy Intel because their chips and chipsets are rock solid stable
That's funny. I recall Intel being in the recalled motherboard of the month club recently. Between all of the problems that they were having with RDRAM and then with their SDRAM bridge chips things were getting really ugly.
Frankly, AMD's use of the Alpha's bus architecture for their dual-processor boxes makes them much more attractive. Dedicated memory bandwidth for each CPU is a nice thing. (It would be nice to see them scale up to 4 and 8 way boxes however.)
We've got a Beowulf cluster of dual-AMD boxes and the thing just cranks out the calculations.
You can sell your IP more than once. In fact, you can even give your IP away and still sell it to boot.
Look at the Qt toolkit. You can either use an Open Source license and include it in anything you write with an Open Source license. Thus the IP is being "given away".
However, if you don't want to open source your work then you can go and buy the Qt IP and include it that way.
Remember, with IP you have two separate issues. The first is ownership also known as copyright. The second is the licensing of that IP. You can sell your IP licenses to as many people as you want. You can even give it away free to one person and sell it to another. There is no limit to what you can do.
There are numerous ways to frame the IP violation discussion. I was originally objecting to the notion that the Property aspect of IP should be emphasized. I was merely showing how if we extended the current limitations that are put on IP onto real property how absurd they would seem.
This is why "IP" isn't property. Think about it. If I sold one acre of land to two people I'd wind up in jail.
Or, say I sold you my car but included a set of rules saying that only you can drive it, you'll have to pay me extra if you want to bring passengers, and you can't sell it to anyone else when you're done using it. (And oh yeah, even if the thing is a defective POS when I sold it to you, tough!)
Do you really think we'd all sit and quietly accept the terms we get for most IP if we were buying real property?
Thanks.
Guess I should have left the 's' off of the query. Reading the two descriptions certainly doesn't give any impression of "a worm worse than Code Red" however. Heck, it only achieves worm status by looking for machines that have already been SubSeven trojaned.
If anything, this would tend to lend more credence to the "giant snowjob" label for this article.
(Actually, the whole thing read like a bad CSI script.)
Ye gads that was horrible. This has to be my favorite bit of hyperbole:
Worms were the most vicious new beasts to stalk the Internet.
I think Morris would have a few words of disagreement about that.
So, we have a section: Early July.
Then the next section: Second Week of July which starts
Weeks passed.
And, to top it all off we go over to McAfee and search and get the following:
Search Results
We found no records matching the following criteria:
Virus name containing "leaves".
This has to be BS of the first and worst order.