Yup: don't permit corporation to sue citizen, but permit corp vs corp and citizen vs citizen.
If citizen wants to sue a corporation, they simply form their own corporattion and capitalise it with sufficient funds to litigate.
NB This doesn't mean citizens get to break the windows of the corporate HQ with impunity (the corp reports them to the police), just that corporations can't force citizens to submit to the gross inequity of their litigation budget.
The other thing to do, of course, is to abolish copyright.
Property is that which you physically and exclusively control, and have created or otherwise have a natural right to. It is something that you can exchange or can give to another. Try not to focus beyond that.
To make it easier, an example of such property is a secret formula you write in a diary.
You could sell this formula to someone if they were convinced only you had it and it was valuable. Once you've sold it, it is no longer your secret.
It doesn't matter that you haven't destroyed your diary. The property was the secret, and you no longer have that secret.
It doesn't matter that what you sold was transformed in the process of exchange (from a secret to a 'restricted knowledge distribution'), you and the purchaser considered the exchange equitable. You now have more money instead of a secret. They have a formula which they didn't have before, and less money.
This buyer, could instead have burgled your house, taken a photo of your diary, and thereby STOLEN your secret. It doesn't matter whether you knew about this or not, the fact remains that the burglar had to breach your privacy and property in order to remove something of value from you. You lost the secret.
Naturally, owners of secrets are conscious that they may be stolen without their knowledge and are sensitive to clues that theft may have occurred, e.g. previously keen purchasers suddenly claiming they've found someone else who also has a good formula.
Unfortunately, copyright makes people think that all intellectual property is a pretence, even private intellectual property. This is because copyright is about pretending that public intellectual property is still privately owned when it plainly isn't. So, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater when you ignore copyright. You're reclaiming the public's rightful ownership of published intellectual property, you are not also claiming ownership of people's private intellectual property - that's still theirs to keep or sell.
It is not the copy that is being stolen, but the private property. The property ceases to be private once a copy is removed from private possession - irrespective of whether any copy remains. Thus the theft causes loss from the owner - the owner has lost their private property, for it is now no longer private.
Once private property is stolen, or deliberately given away/exchanged by its owner, then it is no longer their private property and must now be considered an illegitimately or legitimately distributed work, or, if the original owner intended, published.
And as we know when it comes to published property, you can't steal it by making copies of it, you can only infringe copyright. If anything, it is actually copyright that steals public property by denying its owner, the public, full rights to its own property.
An honour based deal tends to require a relationship. Diffused copies involve no such relationship; there isn't anyone from whom any such diffused copies may be purchased, nor in fact any need. Copy diffusion is a consequential benefit of the Internet.
The only person with whom a relationship is necessary is the artist, and that is between them and each member of their audience who would see them produce more.
The Internet enables this relationship, and consequently, with the necessary facility, enables honour based deals.
It should soon be possible for a digital artist to sell their work just as it is for any traditional craftsman to do so - without needing the traditional publishers' agreement aka copyright.
There are two pertinent issues here: truth and privacy.
'Truth' in terms of a contract to deal (bargain). It doesn't matter whether the goods or services to be exchanged are tangible or not, the fact remains, a promise has been made by both parties and should be upheld.
The other issue is 'privacy'. If you privately create an intangible work, this has all the same aspects of property that a tangible work would have, say a basket. That private work remains yours alone until you give it or a copy to someone else (typically in an exchange). Thus, it is indeed possible to steal an unreleased work, whether intangible or not.
The closest you can get to 'stealing service' is to enslave someone - get them to work against their will.
Otherwise, you have either broken a contract (committed fraud, etc.) or stolen someone's work (their private intellectual property).
But, you are right about entitlement. No-one is entitled to receive compensation for their labour. What people are entitled to is that their contracts are upheld by law. That is, if you find someone who AGREES to pay you some amount to fix a bug in some GPL code then you are entitled to the EXCHANGE of the agreed compensation for the agreed labour. You may of course need evidence of this agreement in the event of any dispute or fraud.
The morality concerns the human rights to truth (upholding of contracts) and privacy (no invasion or violation).
You can count yourself as one of the few on this planet who grok this issue.
I'm working on a mechanism to facilitate the process you mention in your 'step 3', of funding the artist for their art, rather than paying the retailer for a mere copy: The Contingency Market.
Got my influence from tons of mythology & faery lit, i.e. walking round trees three times, fairy rings, stone circles, magic wands, 'magical laws', maypoles, etc.
I just thought it a little amusing, if all the henges were actually nothing to do with seasonal prediction, that any solar or stellar alignment while demonstrably present was purely to improve performance in some way - for whatever strange reason.
For example, it is not impossible that one day in the future someone may deduce that sundials are for passing travellers to check where north is.
Don't let Occam's razor stifle exploration of possibility.;-)
Just think of it as an amusing thought experiment: to consider the implications of the henge not being aligned with seasonal events in order to function as a calendar, but in order to be specifically aligned geomorphologically.
Yeah, if it doesn't already, the GPL needs to specify that the binary (or a 100% functional binary compatible equivalent) must be derivable from the source code in combination with a compiler/toolset (for which source code must be available, and this source code must produce the compiler/toolset (or functional equivalent) when used in conjunction with a standard compiler).
Perhaps they're just distributing the hardware (that happens to use the modified GPL components in its firmware, or embedded software)?
If the GPL only covers distribution of software and LinkSys are only providing hardware (the customer is explicitly not being provided with the software - the fact that software resides within the hardware might not constitute delivery since the purchaser is not supposed to access it) then LinkSys do not have to release source code.
If LinkSys say "Here are some drivers that we're supplying to you as part of the package", then maybe they would be supplying software, but it doesn't sound like that in this case.
The GPL FAQ explicitly states that GPL software (modded or not) may be privately used without obligation to disclose its source.
If the firmware is tantamount to private use then this would seem to put LinkSys in the clear. They can't help it if someone raids their premises or spies on their private files.
But, what if I produce a patching system that includes the GPL source, but also a bunch of closed source mods, and at install time it installs the mods to the GPL code?
I thought it was that if a distributable relied in any way on GPL code, that all of it had to be GPLed.
I like your idea, but it needs to address the 'boot delay' issue. What would get round that would be a machine switching system, where multiple machines/OSes (Windows/Linux/whatever) use shared hardware (CPU/storage/bandwidth), but only have access to user I/O devices when the user gives them the 'focus'. The user can also control the priority and resource quota for each machine. Moreover, each machine is completely isolated from the others (except via network access).
You'd then have the flexibility to instantiate a new machine/OS whenever you felt it needed to run one or more programs isolated from all the others, e.g. a game.
This is a sort of cross between the complete isolation of 'dual boot', but dedicated access to hardware, and virtual machines (performance compromised).
Another idea would be to create a file that could only be reconstituted into a complete file if it were combined with one or more large documents/files produced by RIAA.
That way if one party was held to be illicitly supplying components of a file, then RIAA might also be considered to be providing a component.
But, while an amusing thought experiment, this kind of thing is not particularly ethical in practice. Far better for the original artist to sell their work into the public domain in the first place (relinquishing copyright - though not moral rights). Such as described here: The Digital Art Auction
For hex, we just need new terms for the powers, e.g.
0 zero 10 hex 20 biex 10 hex 1 one 11 hexune 21 biex one 20 biex 2 two 12 hexadual 22 biex two 30 triex 3 three 13 hexter 23 biex three 40 quadex 4 four 14 hexaquad 24 biex four 50 quinex 5 five 15 hexequine 25 biex five 60 sessex 6 six 16 hexess 26 biex six 70 heptex 7 seven 17 hexept 27 biex seven 80 octex 8 eight 18 hexoct 28 biex eight 90 nonex 9 nine 19 hexanone 29 biex nine a0 alphex a alp 1a alphexen 2a biex alp b0 bethex b bet 1b bethexen 2b biex bet c0 caphex c cap 1c caphexen 2c biex cap d0 dellex d dell 1d dellexen 2d biex dell e0 eechex e eek 1e eechexen 2e biex eek f0 fokex f foke 1f foxen 2f biex foke
100 one hexted 1000 hex hexted 1,0000 one hexend 10,0000 hex hexend 100,000 one hexted hexend 1000,0000 hex hexted hexend 1,0000,0000 one hexillion
2^64 one biexillion 2^96 one triexillion 2^128 one quadexillion
Pronunciation guide hexune as in "hex yoon" hexanone rhymes with zone alphexen as in alfexen caphexen as in cafexen foxen rhymes with hoax biex as in "buy X" triex as in "try X" quinex as in "Quin X" nonex as in "Zone X" fokex as in "Broke X"
Examples
101 one hexted and one 111 one hexted and hexune 1CE = one hexted and caphex eek CF9 = cap hexted and fokex nine DEADBEEF = Dellex eek hexted and alphex dell hexend, bethex eek hexted and eechex foke
Compare with a decimal approximation of 83286339, i.e. "Eighty three hundred and twenty eight 'tenthou', sixty three hundred and thirty nine" as opposed to "Eighty three million, two hundred and eighty six thousand, three hundred and thirty nine"
In hex. 83326339 would be "Octex three hexted and triex two hexend, sessex three hexted and triex nine"
Hey, pity the poor Romans
on
Eleventy What?
·
· Score: 1
MCMLXXXVIII
How do you say that in a hurry eh?
And don't get me started on the US/UK difference in missing out 'and' e.g. 101 Dalmations:
One Hundred AND One Dalmations vs One Hundred, One Dalmations.
GPL does not prevent closed development as long as there's no distribution.
Therefore you can take all the GPL code you want, build on it for any period (a month, a decade, whatever), and as long as when you release/distribute it, you release it GPL, then you have still fully complied with the GPL.
All you do, is sell the release of the improvement to a cartel of expectant users.
Naturally, it may be more economic if you engage this cartel in the process of arriving at a fair price. Hence, why The Digital Art Auction
may be a better mechanism than simply having the developer set their price.
Once you realise that the cartel needn't be just a few large corporations, but umpteen thousand users, you begin to see that this could be a viable revenue model.
A similar idea to the Digital Art Auction
on
O-STEP In The Limelight
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
This is a similar idea, but at least allows the market to help arrive at an agreeable valuation:
The Digital Art Auction
1) Create a spoof website that impersonates a login page of a eCommerce/eBank site of your choice.
2) Send a junk mail (to everyone - false hits don't matter) advertising a special offer or something to get people keen to click the URL to your spoof login.
3) 99% of punters will a) not look for the 's' on https, and b) not look for the weeny padlock icon.
4) Harvest the passwords, use 'em, and then scarper.
SSL is only secure if a) the user knows how to be sure that it's in use, and b) can trust their own PC.
For a development of this Ransom idea, along with the very similar Street Performer Protocol, check out: The Digital Art Auction
.
The key improvement is that not only is the individual price unpaid until the software is released, but that the price isn't set until the software is released, and is guaranteed to be only charged to those people who offered that price or higher.
Funnily enough I have a mountain bike with a biopace chainring. They seem to have stopped making them and the excuse I heard was that the irregular height of the chain caused excess wear on the derailleur or something like that.
But, no, that's not what I was thinking of.
I do now recall someone cycling round a TV studio on a bicycle with non-circular wheels. They were either oval or triangular - I can't remember which.
Actually, I believe there are oval or rounded triangular wheels and someone has successfully created a vehicle (bicycle?) that runs quite smoothly using them. I saw this on TV over 20 years ago...
Slashdot Mirror
Yup: don't permit corporation to sue citizen, but permit corp vs corp and citizen vs citizen.
If citizen wants to sue a corporation, they simply form their own corporattion and capitalise it with sufficient funds to litigate.
NB This doesn't mean citizens get to break the windows of the corporate HQ with impunity (the corp reports them to the police), just that corporations can't force citizens to submit to the gross inequity of their litigation budget.
The other thing to do, of course, is to abolish copyright.
Property is that which you physically and exclusively control, and have created or otherwise have a natural right to. It is something that you can exchange or can give to another. Try not to focus beyond that.
To make it easier, an example of such property is a secret formula you write in a diary.
You could sell this formula to someone if they were convinced only you had it and it was valuable. Once you've sold it, it is no longer your secret.
It doesn't matter that you haven't destroyed your diary. The property was the secret, and you no longer have that secret.
It doesn't matter that what you sold was transformed in the process of exchange (from a secret to a 'restricted knowledge distribution'), you and the purchaser considered the exchange equitable. You now have more money instead of a secret. They have a formula which they didn't have before, and less money.
This buyer, could instead have burgled your house, taken a photo of your diary, and thereby STOLEN your secret.
It doesn't matter whether you knew about this or not, the fact remains that the burglar had to breach your privacy and property in order to remove something of value from you. You lost the secret.
Naturally, owners of secrets are conscious that they may be stolen without their knowledge and are sensitive to clues that theft may have occurred, e.g. previously keen purchasers suddenly claiming they've found someone else who also has a good formula.
Unfortunately, copyright makes people think that all intellectual property is a pretence, even private intellectual property. This is because copyright is about pretending that public intellectual property is still privately owned when it plainly isn't. So, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater when you ignore copyright. You're reclaiming the public's rightful ownership of published intellectual property, you are not also claiming ownership of people's private intellectual property - that's still theirs to keep or sell.
It is not the copy that is being stolen, but the private property. The property ceases to be private once a copy is removed from private possession - irrespective of whether any copy remains. Thus the theft causes loss from the owner - the owner has lost their private property, for it is now no longer private.
Once private property is stolen, or deliberately given away/exchanged by its owner, then it is no longer their private property and must now be considered an illegitimately or legitimately distributed work, or, if the original owner intended, published.
And as we know when it comes to published property, you can't steal it by making copies of it, you can only infringe copyright. If anything, it is actually copyright that steals public property by denying its owner, the public, full rights to its own property.
An honour based deal tends to require a relationship. Diffused copies involve no such relationship; there isn't anyone from whom any such diffused copies may be purchased, nor in fact any need. Copy diffusion is a consequential benefit of the Internet.
The only person with whom a relationship is necessary is the artist, and that is between them and each member of their audience who would see them produce more.
The Internet enables this relationship, and consequently, with the necessary facility, enables honour based deals.
This is why I'm working on the http://www.contingencymarket.com/, so that it can enable sites like http://www.digitalartauction.com/.
It should soon be possible for a digital artist to sell their work just as it is for any traditional craftsman to do so - without needing the traditional publishers' agreement aka copyright.
There are two pertinent issues here: truth and privacy.
'Truth' in terms of a contract to deal (bargain). It doesn't matter whether the goods or services to be exchanged are tangible or not, the fact remains, a promise has been made by both parties and should be upheld.
The other issue is 'privacy'. If you privately create an intangible work, this has all the same aspects of property that a tangible work would have, say a basket. That private work remains yours alone until you give it or a copy to someone else (typically in an exchange). Thus, it is indeed possible to steal an unreleased work, whether intangible or not.
The closest you can get to 'stealing service' is to enslave someone - get them to work against their will.
Otherwise, you have either broken a contract (committed fraud, etc.) or stolen someone's work (their private intellectual property).
But, you are right about entitlement. No-one is entitled to receive compensation for their labour. What people are entitled to is that their contracts are upheld by law. That is, if you find someone who AGREES to pay you some amount to fix a bug in some GPL code then you are entitled to the EXCHANGE of the agreed compensation for the agreed labour. You may of course need evidence of this agreement in the event of any dispute or fraud.
The morality concerns the human rights to truth (upholding of contracts) and privacy (no invasion or violation).
Top marks!
You can count yourself as one of the few on this planet who grok this issue.
I'm working on a mechanism to facilitate the process you mention in your 'step 3', of funding the artist for their art, rather than paying the retailer for a mere copy: The Contingency Market.
I also wrote an article a while ago about using this mechanism for games development: The Bedroom Coder's Business Model.
Nope, not read Lords & Ladies.
;-)
Got my influence from tons of mythology & faery lit, i.e. walking round trees three times, fairy rings, stone circles, magic wands, 'magical laws', maypoles, etc.
I just thought it a little amusing, if all the henges were actually nothing to do with seasonal prediction, that any solar or stellar alignment while demonstrably present was purely to improve performance in some way - for whatever strange reason.
For example, it is not impossible that one day in the future someone may deduce that sundials are for passing travellers to check where north is.
Don't let Occam's razor stifle exploration of possibility.
Just think of it as an amusing thought experiment: to consider the implications of the henge not being aligned with seasonal events in order to function as a calendar, but in order to be specifically aligned geomorphologically.
Whilst most assume that Stonehenge was used to establish the position of the stars, there is another explanation.
The stars may have been used to accurately establish the orientation of Stonehenge.
In otherwords, the builders cared not one whit where the stars were, but they cared greatly as to the position and alignment of stonehenge.
They knew that astronomical observation and unique annual events could achieve this objective.
So the real question is "Why would it be important to precisely position and orient Stonehenge?"
It would be important if there was more than one Earth, e.g. in a parallel universe.
How else could builders on both planets construct something in precisely the same place and orientation?
What would be the benefit to having two Stonehenges in identical positions and alignments?
A gate. Morphic resonance. Weave your way through one henge and pop out at the other.
Dangerous stuff.
And if you decide you don't like the gate, or the folk who come through it? Knock it down until it stops working.
Yeah, if it doesn't already, the GPL needs to specify that the binary (or a 100% functional binary compatible equivalent) must be derivable from the source code in combination with a compiler/toolset (for which source code must be available, and this source code must produce the compiler/toolset (or functional equivalent) when used in conjunction with a standard compiler).
Tricky.
Are LinkSys actually distributing the software?
Perhaps they're just distributing the hardware (that happens to use the modified GPL components in its firmware, or embedded software)?
If the GPL only covers distribution of software and LinkSys are only providing hardware (the customer is explicitly not being provided with the software - the fact that software resides within the hardware might not constitute delivery since the purchaser is not supposed to access it) then LinkSys do not have to release source code.
If LinkSys say "Here are some drivers that we're supplying to you as part of the package", then maybe they would be supplying software, but it doesn't sound like that in this case.
The GPL FAQ explicitly states that GPL software (modded or not) may be privately used without obligation to disclose its source.
If the firmware is tantamount to private use then this would seem to put LinkSys in the clear. They can't help it if someone raids their premises or spies on their private files.
The Digital Art Auction would provide an alternative funding mechanism.
But, what if I produce a patching system that includes the GPL source, but also a bunch of closed source mods, and at install time it installs the mods to the GPL code?
I thought it was that if a distributable relied in any way on GPL code, that all of it had to be GPLed.
It is the LGPL that enables mix & match.
You'd then have the flexibility to instantiate a new machine/OS whenever you felt it needed to run one or more programs isolated from all the others, e.g. a game.
This is a sort of cross between the complete isolation of 'dual boot', but dedicated access to hardware, and virtual machines (performance compromised).
Just need a new low level OS....
That way if one party was held to be illicitly supplying components of a file, then RIAA might also be considered to be providing a component.
But, while an amusing thought experiment, this kind of thing is not particularly ethical in practice. Far better for the original artist to sell their work into the public domain in the first place (relinquishing copyright - though not moral rights). Such as described here: The Digital Art Auction
For hex, we just need new terms for the powers, e.g.
0 zero 10 hex 20 biex 10 hex
1 one 11 hexune 21 biex one 20 biex
2 two 12 hexadual 22 biex two 30 triex
3 three 13 hexter 23 biex three 40 quadex
4 four 14 hexaquad 24 biex four 50 quinex
5 five 15 hexequine 25 biex five 60 sessex
6 six 16 hexess 26 biex six 70 heptex
7 seven 17 hexept 27 biex seven 80 octex
8 eight 18 hexoct 28 biex eight 90 nonex
9 nine 19 hexanone 29 biex nine a0 alphex
a alp 1a alphexen 2a biex alp b0 bethex
b bet 1b bethexen 2b biex bet c0 caphex
c cap 1c caphexen 2c biex cap d0 dellex
d dell 1d dellexen 2d biex dell e0 eechex
e eek 1e eechexen 2e biex eek f0 fokex
f foke 1f foxen 2f biex foke
100 one hexted
1000 hex hexted
1,0000 one hexend
10,0000 hex hexend
100,000 one hexted hexend
1000,0000 hex hexted hexend
1,0000,0000 one hexillion
2^64 one biexillion
2^96 one triexillion
2^128 one quadexillion
Pronunciation guide
hexune as in "hex yoon"
hexanone rhymes with zone
alphexen as in alfexen
caphexen as in cafexen
foxen rhymes with hoax
biex as in "buy X"
triex as in "try X"
quinex as in "Quin X"
nonex as in "Zone X"
fokex as in "Broke X"
Examples
101 one hexted and one
111 one hexted and hexune
1CE = one hexted and caphex eek
CF9 = cap hexted and fokex nine
DEADBEEF = Dellex eek hexted and alphex dell hexend, bethex eek hexted and eechex foke
Compare with a decimal approximation of 83286339, i.e.
"Eighty three hundred and twenty eight 'tenthou', sixty three hundred and thirty nine"
as opposed to
"Eighty three million, two hundred and eighty six thousand, three hundred and thirty nine"
In hex. 83326339 would be
"Octex three hexted and triex two hexend, sessex three hexted and triex nine"
MCMLXXXVIII
How do you say that in a hurry eh?
And don't get me started on the US/UK difference in missing out 'and' e.g. 101 Dalmations:
One Hundred AND One Dalmations
vs
One Hundred, One Dalmations.
And how about Two gross, three dozen and four?
"Thirteen Twenty", could be a year or a time.
Four score and Ten
vs
Quatre Vingt Dix
Therefore you can take all the GPL code you want, build on it for any period (a month, a decade, whatever), and as long as when you release/distribute it, you release it GPL, then you have still fully complied with the GPL.
All you do, is sell the release of the improvement to a cartel of expectant users.
Naturally, it may be more economic if you engage this cartel in the process of arriving at a fair price. Hence, why The Digital Art Auction may be a better mechanism than simply having the developer set their price.
Once you realise that the cartel needn't be just a few large corporations, but umpteen thousand users, you begin to see that this could be a viable revenue model.
This is a similar idea, but at least allows the market to help arrive at an agreeable valuation: The Digital Art Auction
2) Send a junk mail (to everyone - false hits don't matter) advertising a special offer or something to get people keen to click the URL to your spoof login.
3) 99% of punters will a) not look for the 's' on https, and b) not look for the weeny padlock icon.
4) Harvest the passwords, use 'em, and then scarper.
SSL is only secure if a) the user knows how to be sure that it's in use, and b) can trust their own PC.
The key improvement is that not only is the individual price unpaid until the software is released, but that the price isn't set until the software is released, and is guaranteed to be only charged to those people who offered that price or higher.
Funnily enough I have a mountain bike with a biopace chainring. They seem to have stopped making them and the excuse I heard was that the irregular height of the chain caused excess wear on the derailleur or something like that.
But, no, that's not what I was thinking of.
I do now recall someone cycling round a TV studio on a bicycle with non-circular wheels. They were either oval or triangular - I can't remember which.
Actually, I believe there are oval or rounded triangular wheels and someone has successfully created a vehicle (bicycle?) that runs quite smoothly using them. I saw this on TV over 20 years ago...
So do I!
Sounds to me like you'll agree with the following: The Digital Art Auction
Thank you Isaac Newton!
Perhaps some budding Albert Einsteins out there would like to provide a better answer?
Here's a thread of a conversation I had on that subject: www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/1999-07/msg0017259.html