The two actually have nothing to do with each other. Many "proprietary" software projects are done in an incremental, release-often mode. Many "free" software projects are done in a waterfall, plan-design-code-test-release mode.
By promulgating this myth, you are actually doing free software a big disservice, by limiting it to a certain style of development.
Just a quick read of the 1998 immunity law makes it clear that "without selection of the material" and "without modification of content" is intended to provide immunity for user-generated content as opposed to ISP-generated content. In other words, the ISP doesn't select material or modify content to create content, it just makes what the user created available over the network.
Simply *blocking* undesirable content would not fall under selection or modification. Tim Wu is frothing hyberbolic because he is so against network filters and AT&T. He's lost his objectivity (if he ever had any).
Using Tim Wu's argument, closing an AT&T-network-hosted child porn website would violate the 1998 law.
This may WELL BE a stupid move by AT&T. But "it's illegal" is a complete red herring.
Re:Ethics Rules and Devil's Advocate
on
SCO Vs. Groklaw
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I work for IBM. I'm a techie not a lawyer, but I've worked with IBM lawyers in the past. I've also had email conversations with PJ about a few things.
When I read this Forbes story and saw that SCO executives think that PJ is really a team of IBM lawyers, I laughed out loud, involuntarily. The idea is so ludicrous that all I could do was laugh. PJ is so on a different plane of existence and thought than any IBM lawyer I've ever met (or can imagine meeting) that it is just plain stupid of SCO to spend one minute thinking about this, much less spend time and resource trying to depose her.
In general, no one in any position of authority at IBM would ever seriously think about creating a false-front blog site for any reason. It's just not the way things are done at IBM. Those here who say "well it could be true" even from a devils-advocate point of view are just uninformed.
Furthermore, even if you dismiss the points above that (a) PJ and IBM are not aligned and (b) IBM would never do anything like this, there's also the point (c): What would IBM have to gain for this hugely risky undertaking? The open-source community is already totally on their side. They do their own legal research, thank you very much, and don't need help from groklaw. Why would anyone even come up with this plan in the first place?
There was, of course, one full state wide recount, the NORC recount done after the election by a consortium of media groups. That recount used six possible criteria for spoiled ballots and found that Al Gore won the state under all six scenarios.
A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.
The story goes on to say that under the two main possible scenarios -- the Florida Supreme Court ruling being upheld rather than struck down by the US Supreme Court, and the original Gore-requested four-county recount -- Bush would have come out on top.
that every registered user has an encryption and signing key, the enterprise has a directory with everyone's public keys, and that by checking one preference, all emails are encrypted and can only be read by those to whom they are addressed -- not even sysadmins with bit-level access to the server hard drives can read them.
This is assuming that the enterprise manages their Notes ID files (which contain the keys) in a semi-reasonable fashion -- like setting the initial passwords to expire and forcing the user to choose a new one, so that a rogue admin can't keep a copy of users' ID files and access their mail.
All this is built-in and is done as a matter of course in Notes.
Audience member: in this new World, and you're talking about GPL going over to the next version, how do you see proprietary software businesses making a profit?
Richard Stallman: That's unethical, they shouldn't be making any money. I hope to see all proprietary software wiped out. That's what I aim for. That would be a World in which our freedom is respected. A proprietary program is a program that is not free. That is to say, a program that does respect the user's essential rights. That's evil. A proprietary program is part of a predatory scheme where people who don't value their freedom are drawn into giving it up in order to gain some kind of practical convenience. And then once they're there, it's harder and harder to get out. Our goal is to rescue people from this.
There is also spin in the description if the corporations protecting/using their property. I would argue the device is the property of the user and it should be theirs to do with as they wish. It is actually this argument about whose device it is that the debate is significantly about.
Well, yes, exactly, you have pointed out one of the key elements of the debate. I should have said "what the corporations view as their property".
I was really trying not to "paint" anyone as "fanatical" or "reasonable".
Upon reading your post, I can see how mine sounded biased. In fact, I was more astonished than anything by reading the referenced interview with RMS. Perhaps that astonishment is what you see coming through.
What I am wondering is, did I say something that isn't actually true? e.g. do you think that RMS would not simply prefer that all corporations be forced to release all their source code, or do you think that he does not see this as a very black/white issue? I admit that this part was a conclusion of mine, as he didn't actually say it. Or do you think that my characterization of Torvalds' motives is wrong? I am trying to be a truth-teller here.
He doesn't want companies to have control of software, however that is not anti-corporation.
I would have said the same thing, until I read the interview that I linked to in the parent's parent of this post. Here's quotes from RMS from that interview (note I am quoting his complete answers, not picking and choosing words). This makes it completely clear that he is against businesses and corporations having power, and that the Free Source movement is just one aspect of that larger anti-corporation movement. As an aside, I am quite impressed with the clarity and precision with which RMS speaks. He leaves no doubt where he stands, what his goals are, and how he intends to pursue them.
I suppose you could pick nits here and say that being against corporations having power is not anti-corporation. But, come on. Let's use words that are meaningful, not spin them.
If you are against the globalization of business power, you should be for free software.
People who say they are against globalization are really against the globalization of business power. They are not actually against globalization as such, because there are other kinds of globalization, the globalization of cooperation and sharing knowledge, which they are not against. Free software replaces business power with cooperation and the sharing of knowledge.
Globalizing a bad thing makes it worse. Business power is bad, so globalizing it is worse. But globalizing a good thing is usually good. Cooperation and sharing of knowledge are good, and when they happen globally, they are even better.
The kind of globalization there are demonstrations against is the globalization of business power. And free software is a part of that movement. It is the expression of the opposition to domination of software users by software developers.
Spin-free? Your comment contains about the maximum spin anyone could possibly impart.
Interesting comment. I'm curious what information you have that you didn't share that led you to that opinion. Care to elaborate and/or give examples? It could be an informative discussion.
RSM isn't the only driver of the elimination of software patents. There is another of opinion (one I happen to agree with) that simply doesn't believe software should be patnented.
yep, I agree with what you said about 90%. I think there can be truly innovative inventions that are expressed in software rather than physical constructions, which should be patentable. But I think the bar is set way too low.
However -- the subject matter is not patents in general, it's what is going on with the GPL v3 debate, and specifically what RMS thinks of these. So let's not get off track.
RMS and the FSF (which are one and the same for all practical purposes) talk about "free software". What they are truly fundamentally about is creating a comprehensive category of software which is completely free from corporate/business control, and which individual users can completely control in all aspects as they wish.
His fundamental motivation is an anti-corporation, pro-individual/community point of view. The fact that the mechanism for enabling his version of "free software" is the GPL and a common pool of open source is secondary. If he could have gotten a global law enforced that all corporations must release all their source code freely on the Internet, that's what he would have done, instead of GNU and GPL.
RMS is an absolutist on this point. He truly sees this as good vs. evil, and as a belief system about which there can be no question.
This is where the insistence that DRM and "Trusted Computing" and software patents must be abolished comes from. These are all tools that corporations use to protect their property. RMS does not believe they should have property like this... that it should all be made available to users with no control by corporations.
Linux is also licensed under the GPL (v2), but comes from a completely different motivation than RMS. Torvalds simply believes the open-source development model is the most effective way to create excellent software. Torvalds is just fine with corporations and businesses using Linux for profit, even if that means "controlling" some aspects of its use. He certainly has opinions on DRM, patents, and "Trusted Computing", but he's not going to let those get in the way of Linux development.
So now starts the struggle for control of "what is the meaning of free software". RMS is clearly trying to re-establish his vision of the principles involved by pushing through GPL v3, because he's seen GPL v2 used in ways that offend his principles deeply. Is it too late? Has the FOSS movement taken off to an extent that he no longer controls it? Stay tuned.
Instead, let me put this question to you in as biased a fashion as I can: How does it promote competition when we allow telcos the ability to charge prohibitively high fees for certain types of traffic that might undermine their cash cows?
The cash cows (POTS and long distance) are cash cows precisely because we have over-regulated the telcos. We've trained them to lobby for business advantage rather than compete in an open marketplace. Let's not make the same mistake when it comes to Internet traffic.
There's enough fiber out there to allow competitors to step in and take business away from anyone whose fee structure the users don't like. Let the marketplace do its job. Clumsy government price controls almost always make things worse.
The fundamental problem for the bandwidth providers is that the mix of traffic is changing: from intermittent, spotty use for Web page browsing and e-mail -- to streaming of audio, video, and other digital content (e.g. BitTorrent). So, the business model that says you can oversell bandwidth to users is becoming less viable. It's like the airlines overselling seats because they know everyone won't show up. Therefore, aggregate average and peak network bandwidth requirements are going up.
How are the bandwidth providers going to recoup their investment in the network necessary to handle that increased demand? In particular, are they going to go to a tiered pricing model, separating out types of access and pricing them differently? Or, are they going to just charge more per user and average it out? Wouldn't you like to be in an economy where you actually have choice in the matter? Maybe you want one or the other. Why should this be regulated? That sounds like a really terrible idea.
An analogy is the practice of HOV and/or toll lanes on crowded freeways. If you were a "Highways should be free! All users should be treated equally!" advocate for the Internet, you should also be against special highway lanes -- because they provide a separate tier for certain kinds of users and give them better service for a cost (be it a toll, or a requirement that you can't be driving your car by yourself).
I was not expressing an opinion. You were. You assume your opinion is correct and anyone who doesn't agree with you is stupid. You are actually making my point for me. You are biased, you admit it, you are proud of it. That is my point. There are actually two sides to this story whether you like it or not. Slashdot is getting less and less interesting because they are simply pounding the scripted drums of the left wing.
I can't believe how far this has gotten. How did it get to be that NOT changing the laws is some radically stupid position? How did it get to be that allowing competition is automatically evil? You seem to live in some fantasy world that the Internet is some public resource, like a library, paid for by all and sharable by all with absolutely equal access privileges. Well, it isn't, and comm links never have been. Get over it. "net neutrality" my ass. It never was neutral to start with.
The whole debate is just some fake alarm sounded by a few companies against a few others. Companies who think they can get a business advantage through politics. You are following that line like sheep.
Don't tell us we're stupid if we don't agree with you, or anything. And don't bother to use actual grammar, either. That makes us even more likely to follow like sheep.
hey... Slashdot... you are becoming less and less interesting.
The judge's opinion was so poorly thought out and written that even the far-left blog sites (e.g. DailyKos) are acknowledging that it will probably be reversed or at least be sent back for review. Legal professors are saying that they would give a 2nd-year law student an F if she turned in a homework assignment this poor. To say it assumed the conclusion is to give it more substance than it had.
(see http://news.com.com/2060-11199_3-6107326.html?tag= nefd.blogCaro)
Even if the above were not true, to crow that corporations that cooperated with the NSA will be punished is just a ridiculous leap of speculation with no basis in anything.
OK line up boys and girls. On my left: those who think that the Federal Government should run the Internet for the good of the public, because those big corporations are EVIL. On my right: those who think that free-market competition should decide the winners and losers, and will drive the Internet's evolution much faster than the stranglehold of the --- perhaps not "Evil" but at least "Slow, incompetent, and stifling -- Federal Government.
Where do you stand?
Think carefully, your future is in your hands.
Then call or write your representative.
Re:Translation for common people:
on
IBM Open Sources UIMA
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
IBM is open sourcing all its abandoned garage projects.
If you stop and think about it for a moment, this would be stupid for IBM to do, and it's obviously not what they are doing.
Paradoxically, it costs money to open source something (at least for a big company like IBM). Getting the package ready for the light of day, getting all the approvals and sign-offs, and staffing the resource to keep working on it, all take money.
IBM wouldn't do that for something it doesn't consider valuable in some way to its business.
This is actually a perfect example of the kind of thing IBM likes to open source. It's a framework that (hopefully) will actually make unstructured analysis components work together in an enterprise (at least as developers start adopting it). In order to get to "critical mass", open sourcing the framework lets developers know that they can count on it (a) being there and (b) being free. It'll (again hopefully) make the market space larger for all players, allowing IBM to compete on its merits, rather than having to try to displace entrenched proprietary solutions.
Exactly right on the Bill O'Reilly slamming the oil companies.
And... did you watch the Fox News coverage of Katrina? They lit into FEMA and government in general like nobody's business for not helping faster. They were actually quite a bit more critical than other media.
oh wait... I do know. Because you have drunk the liberal MSM anti-FoxNews kool-aid and are busily jerking your knees in response to anything labeled "Fox News".
"from the strangest-thing-you'll-see-lately dept."?? Could you be any more self-importantly snide?
When is the last time you saw CNN, the New York Times, or CBS news print this many well-articulated reader responses to an article? Then own up to the author's bias and assert they made a mistake by not making it apparent?
The TX is at a great price point compared to its competition which is wireless PDAs. The iPod Nano only plays music. Complete apples and oranges comparison.
If you want a "boatload" of memory on the TX, get it for $299 and get an SD card to stick in it. 2GB SD cards are now like $150.
It seems to me that the iPod Nano 4GB is essentially priced at about what the 4GB of flash memory costs. I think Apple expects to make money on iTunes and accessories, not on the iPod Nano itself.
I've got the best TPM implementation ever!! It's called my brain. It allows me to make only "fair use" copies and makes sure I don't break any laws.... Whats that? You don't believe me? So then, your issue isn't with TPM, your issue is with trust. You don't trust me. If you don't trust me, then don't sell anything to me. You'll never have to worry about TPM/DRM again.
So, ATMs should allow you to withdraw more than is in your account, because banks should trust you to use your brain and not do that. What, the bank doesn't trust you? Then they shouldn't have you as a customer.
Stores should not have security cameras and store detectives because they should trust their customers not to shoplift. What, they don't trust me? Screw them, I'll never shop THERE again.
After all, all those things are ILLEGAL, right? So people just shouldn't do them. We should have no enforcement mechanisms. That's just restricting people's FREEDOM!!!!
Excuse me... but this is exactly the kind of non-productive "Slashdot groupthink" response that is not helpful.
Here's my challenge to you: based upon the hostility that the content industries have had towards any concept of fair use and technical innovation, going back to the invention of the player piano, elaborate why you think these industries would accept any TPM system that guaranteed fair use rights without being forced to do so by the government.
No, you misunderstand me. I never challenged you to come up with a TPM system that the industry would accept. Never said that. Go back and check my post if you don't believe me.
I also agree with your characterization of content providers as quoted above.
I said, come up with a TPM that allows fair use rights, but also stops unfair use.
Once we have that, we can get the government to "force" industry to accept it. Just like the Betamax decision.
I am completely serious about this, I am not trying to start a debate or be polemic. I think that, if such a technical proposal could be made from an open community, it'd actually help move this towards a resolution.
If I purchase something, then I expect to be able to use it in any legal manner. I expect the law not to restrict me from doing anything unreasonable (according to a "reasonable person" test). I do not want a party who is not part of the legislative process making such determinations for me. If they put barriers in the way to prevent me from using it in a legitimate manner, I expect to be able to remove said barriers.
Simply saying that it should be illegal, yet easy, to make lossless digital copies of content and share them with thousands of others, ignores the business, social, and legal reality of our situation.
Depending on people not to digitally copy and electronically distribute just doesn't work. See Napster. They will, if given 1/2 of a chance.
Your model will simply lead to a continuation of the current RIAA lawsuit situation. Why? Because it'll be the only tool that content providers have to go after copiers. Is that what you want?
This is a balancing act between content providers and content consumers. Content providers don't have the tools to distinguish effectively between "legal, reasonable, legitimate" copying vs. whatever the opposite is.
My challenge to you, and the "I bought it so I should be able to copy it" crowd, is to USE YOUR SMARTS to DESIGN TPM THAT WILL MEET YOUR NEEDS, yet also stop people from copying and mass distribution of protected content.
More importantly (for this discussion), if the copyright law were revoked, why would anyone try to make money by publishing a book? If it's unsuccessful, you lose money. If it's successful, it'll be ripped off, and you lose money. Either way, you lose.
They wouldn't. Given that income encourages people to publish, and encouraging people to publish is beneficial to society, revoking copyright would probably be a bad idea. What's your point?
Exactly that revoking copyright is a bad idea. So we agree on this.
Slashdot Mirror
The two actually have nothing to do with each other. Many "proprietary" software projects are done in an incremental, release-often mode. Many "free" software projects are done in a waterfall, plan-design-code-test-release mode.
By promulgating this myth, you are actually doing free software a big disservice, by limiting it to a certain style of development.
Go away, ponder, then come back and repent.
Just a quick read of the 1998 immunity law makes it clear that "without selection of the material" and "without modification of content" is intended to provide immunity for user-generated content as opposed to ISP-generated content. In other words, the ISP doesn't select material or modify content to create content, it just makes what the user created available over the network.
Simply *blocking* undesirable content would not fall under selection or modification. Tim Wu is frothing hyberbolic because he is so against network filters and AT&T. He's lost his objectivity (if he ever had any).
Using Tim Wu's argument, closing an AT&T-network-hosted child porn website would violate the 1998 law.
This may WELL BE a stupid move by AT&T. But "it's illegal" is a complete red herring.
I work for IBM. I'm a techie not a lawyer, but I've worked with IBM lawyers in the past. I've also had email conversations with PJ about a few things.
When I read this Forbes story and saw that SCO executives think that PJ is really a team of IBM lawyers, I laughed out loud, involuntarily. The idea is so ludicrous that all I could do was laugh. PJ is so on a different plane of existence and thought than any IBM lawyer I've ever met (or can imagine meeting) that it is just plain stupid of SCO to spend one minute thinking about this, much less spend time and resource trying to depose her.
In general, no one in any position of authority at IBM would ever seriously think about creating a false-front blog site for any reason. It's just not the way things are done at IBM. Those here who say "well it could be true" even from a devils-advocate point of view are just uninformed.
Furthermore, even if you dismiss the points above that (a) PJ and IBM are not aligned and (b) IBM would never do anything like this, there's also the point (c): What would IBM have to gain for this hugely risky undertaking? The open-source community is already totally on their side. They do their own legal research, thank you very much, and don't need help from groklaw. Why would anyone even come up with this plan in the first place?
so... why does this CNN story about the NORC recount say:
The story goes on to say that under the two main possible scenarios -- the Florida Supreme Court ruling being upheld rather than struck down by the US Supreme Court, and the original Gore-requested four-county recount -- Bush would have come out on top.
that every registered user has an encryption and signing key, the enterprise has a directory with everyone's public keys, and that by checking one preference, all emails are encrypted and can only be read by those to whom they are addressed -- not even sysadmins with bit-level access to the server hard drives can read them.
This is assuming that the enterprise manages their Notes ID files (which contain the keys) in a semi-reasonable fashion -- like setting the initial passwords to expire and forcing the user to choose a new one, so that a rogue admin can't keep a copy of users' ID files and access their mail.
All this is built-in and is done as a matter of course in Notes.
Actually I just found a quote from RMS that shows exactly how he feels about proprietary software.
- rms-transcript.en.html (transcript of the latest GPL conference):
From http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/bangalore
Audience member: in this new World, and you're talking about GPL going over to the next version, how do you see proprietary software businesses making a profit?
Richard Stallman: That's unethical, they shouldn't be making any money. I hope to see all proprietary software wiped out. That's what I aim for. That would be a World in which our freedom is respected. A proprietary program is a program that is not free. That is to say, a program that does respect the user's essential rights. That's evil. A proprietary program is part of a predatory scheme where people who don't value their freedom are drawn into giving it up in order to gain some kind of practical convenience. And then once they're there, it's harder and harder to get out. Our goal is to rescue people from this.
Well, yes, exactly, you have pointed out one of the key elements of the debate. I should have said "what the corporations view as their property".
I was really trying not to "paint" anyone as "fanatical" or "reasonable". Upon reading your post, I can see how mine sounded biased. In fact, I was more astonished than anything by reading the referenced interview with RMS. Perhaps that astonishment is what you see coming through.
What I am wondering is, did I say something that isn't actually true? e.g. do you think that RMS would not simply prefer that all corporations be forced to release all their source code, or do you think that he does not see this as a very black/white issue? I admit that this part was a conclusion of mine, as he didn't actually say it. Or do you think that my characterization of Torvalds' motives is wrong? I am trying to be a truth-teller here.
I would have said the same thing, until I read the interview that I linked to in the parent's parent of this post. Here's quotes from RMS from that interview (note I am quoting his complete answers, not picking and choosing words). This makes it completely clear that he is against businesses and corporations having power, and that the Free Source movement is just one aspect of that larger anti-corporation movement. As an aside, I am quite impressed with the clarity and precision with which RMS speaks. He leaves no doubt where he stands, what his goals are, and how he intends to pursue them.
I suppose you could pick nits here and say that being against corporations having power is not anti-corporation. But, come on. Let's use words that are meaningful, not spin them.
Interesting comment. I'm curious what information you have that you didn't share that led you to that opinion. Care to elaborate and/or give examples? It could be an informative discussion.
RSM isn't the only driver of the elimination of software patents. There is another of opinion (one I happen to agree with) that simply doesn't believe software should be patnented. yep, I agree with what you said about 90%. I think there can be truly innovative inventions that are expressed in software rather than physical constructions, which should be patentable. But I think the bar is set way too low. However -- the subject matter is not patents in general, it's what is going on with the GPL v3 debate, and specifically what RMS thinks of these. So let's not get off track.
about "free software". What they are truly fundamentally about is
creating a comprehensive category of software which is completely free from
corporate/business control, and which individual users can completely control in
all aspects as they wish.
His fundamental motivation is an anti-corporation, pro-individual/community
point of view. The fact that the mechanism for enabling his version of
"free software" is the GPL and a common pool of open source is
secondary. If he could have gotten a global law enforced that all corporations
must release all their source code freely on the Internet, that's what he would
have done, instead of GNU and GPL.
RMS is an absolutist on this point. He truly sees this as good vs. evil, and as
a belief system about which there can be no question.
To help understand this, http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemI
read this interview.
This is where the insistence that DRM and "Trusted Computing" and
software patents must be abolished comes from. These are all tools that
corporations use to protect their property. RMS does not believe they should
have property like this... that it should all be made available to users with no
control by corporations.
Linux is also licensed under the GPL (v2), but comes from a completely
different motivation than RMS. Torvalds simply believes the open-source
development model is the most effective way to create excellent software.
Torvalds is just fine with corporations and businesses using Linux for profit,
even if that means "controlling" some aspects of its use. He
certainly has opinions on DRM, patents, and "Trusted Computing", but
he's not going to let those get in the way of Linux development.
So now starts the struggle for control of "what is the meaning of free
software". RMS is clearly trying to re-establish his vision of the
principles involved by pushing through GPL v3, because he's seen GPL v2 used in
ways that offend his principles deeply. Is it too late? Has the FOSS movement
taken off to an extent that he no longer controls it? Stay tuned.
The cash cows (POTS and long distance) are cash cows precisely because we have over-regulated the telcos. We've trained them to lobby for business advantage rather than compete in an open marketplace. Let's not make the same mistake when it comes to Internet traffic.
There's enough fiber out there to allow competitors to step in and take business away from anyone whose fee structure the users don't like. Let the marketplace do its job. Clumsy government price controls almost always make things worse.
The fundamental problem for the bandwidth providers is that the mix of traffic is changing: from intermittent, spotty use for Web page browsing and e-mail -- to streaming of audio, video, and other digital content (e.g. BitTorrent). So, the business model that says you can oversell bandwidth to users is becoming less viable. It's like the airlines overselling seats because they know everyone won't show up. Therefore, aggregate average and peak network bandwidth requirements are going up.
How are the bandwidth providers going to recoup their investment in the network necessary to handle that increased demand? In particular, are they going to go to a tiered pricing model, separating out types of access and pricing them differently? Or, are they going to just charge more per user and average it out? Wouldn't you like to be in an economy where you actually have choice in the matter? Maybe you want one or the other. Why should this be regulated? That sounds like a really terrible idea.
An analogy is the practice of HOV and/or toll lanes on crowded freeways. If you were a "Highways should be free! All users should be treated equally!" advocate for the Internet, you should also be against special highway lanes -- because they provide a separate tier for certain kinds of users and give them better service for a cost (be it a toll, or a requirement that you can't be driving your car by yourself).
I was not expressing an opinion. You were. You assume your opinion is correct and anyone who doesn't agree with you is stupid. You are actually making my point for me. You are biased, you admit it, you are proud of it. That is my point. There are actually two sides to this story whether you like it or not. Slashdot is getting less and less interesting because they are simply pounding the scripted drums of the left wing.
I can't believe how far this has gotten. How did it get to be that NOT changing the laws is some radically stupid position? How did it get to be that allowing competition is automatically evil? You seem to live in some fantasy world that the Internet is some public resource, like a library, paid for by all and sharable by all with absolutely equal access privileges. Well, it isn't, and comm links never have been. Get over it. "net neutrality" my ass. It never was neutral to start with.
The whole debate is just some fake alarm sounded by a few companies against a few others. Companies who think they can get a business advantage through politics. You are following that line like sheep.
Don't tell us we're stupid if we don't agree with you, or anything. And don't bother to use actual grammar, either. That makes us even more likely to follow like sheep.
hey... Slashdot... you are becoming less and less interesting.
OK line up boys and girls. On my left: those who think that the Federal Government should run the Internet for the good of the public, because those big corporations are EVIL. On my right: those who think that free-market competition should decide the winners and losers, and will drive the Internet's evolution much faster than the stranglehold of the --- perhaps not "Evil" but at least "Slow, incompetent, and stifling -- Federal Government.
Where do you stand?
Think carefully, your future is in your hands.
Then call or write your representative.
If you stop and think about it for a moment, this would be stupid for IBM to do, and it's obviously not what they are doing.
Paradoxically, it costs money to open source something (at least for a big company like IBM). Getting the package ready for the light of day, getting all the approvals and sign-offs, and staffing the resource to keep working on it, all take money.
IBM wouldn't do that for something it doesn't consider valuable in some way to its business.
This is actually a perfect example of the kind of thing IBM likes to open source. It's a framework that (hopefully) will actually make unstructured analysis components work together in an enterprise (at least as developers start adopting it). In order to get to "critical mass", open sourcing the framework lets developers know that they can count on it (a) being there and (b) being free. It'll (again hopefully) make the market space larger for all players, allowing IBM to compete on its merits, rather than having to try to displace entrenched proprietary solutions.
I wish I had like a zillion mod points to give you, Mr. "evolution would be so proud".
One of the best crafted posts I've ever seen.
It sparkled like a jewel in a pool of crap.
Congrats.
Exactly right on the Bill O'Reilly slamming the oil companies.
And... did you watch the Fox News coverage of Katrina? They lit into FEMA and government in general like nobody's business for not helping faster. They were actually quite a bit more critical than other media.
oh wait... I do know. Because you have drunk the liberal MSM anti-FoxNews kool-aid and are busily jerking your knees in response to anything labeled "Fox News".
"from the strangest-thing-you'll-see-lately dept."?? Could you be any more self-importantly snide?
When is the last time you saw CNN, the New York Times, or CBS news print this many well-articulated reader responses to an article? Then own up to the author's bias and assert they made a mistake by not making it apparent?
Let me think, now. Ummmm..... NEVER???
The TX is at a great price point compared to its competition which is wireless PDAs. The iPod Nano only plays music. Complete apples and oranges comparison.
If you want a "boatload" of memory on the TX, get it for $299 and get an SD card to stick in it. 2GB SD cards are now like $150.
It seems to me that the iPod Nano 4GB is essentially priced at about what the 4GB of flash memory costs. I think Apple expects to make money on iTunes and accessories, not on the iPod Nano itself.
I've got the best TPM implementation ever!! It's called my brain. It allows me to make only "fair use" copies and makes sure I don't break any laws.... Whats that? You don't believe me? So then, your issue isn't with TPM, your issue is with trust. You don't trust me. If you don't trust me, then don't sell anything to me. You'll never have to worry about TPM/DRM again.
So, ATMs should allow you to withdraw more than is in your account, because banks should trust you to use your brain and not do that. What, the bank doesn't trust you? Then they shouldn't have you as a customer.
Stores should not have security cameras and store detectives because they should trust their customers not to shoplift. What, they don't trust me? Screw them, I'll never shop THERE again.
After all, all those things are ILLEGAL, right? So people just shouldn't do them. We should have no enforcement mechanisms. That's just restricting people's FREEDOM!!!!
Excuse me... but this is exactly the kind of non-productive "Slashdot groupthink" response that is not helpful.
Here's my challenge to you: based upon the hostility that the content industries have had towards any concept of fair use and technical innovation, going back to the invention of the player piano, elaborate why you think these industries would accept any TPM system that guaranteed fair use rights without being forced to do so by the government.
No, you misunderstand me. I never challenged you to come up with a TPM system that the industry would accept. Never said that. Go back and check my post if you don't believe me.
I also agree with your characterization of content providers as quoted above.
I said, come up with a TPM that allows fair use rights, but also stops unfair use.
Once we have that, we can get the government to "force" industry to accept it. Just like the Betamax decision.
I am completely serious about this, I am not trying to start a debate or be polemic. I think that, if such a technical proposal could be made from an open community, it'd actually help move this towards a resolution.
Will you help?
If I purchase something, then I expect to be able to use it in any legal manner. I expect the law not to restrict me from doing anything unreasonable (according to a "reasonable person" test). I do not want a party who is not part of the legislative process making such determinations for me. If they put barriers in the way to prevent me from using it in a legitimate manner, I expect to be able to remove said barriers.
Simply saying that it should be illegal, yet easy, to make lossless digital copies of content and share them with thousands of others, ignores the business, social, and legal reality of our situation.
Depending on people not to digitally copy and electronically distribute just doesn't work. See Napster. They will, if given 1/2 of a chance.
Your model will simply lead to a continuation of the current RIAA lawsuit situation. Why? Because it'll be the only tool that content providers have to go after copiers. Is that what you want?
This is a balancing act between content providers and content consumers. Content providers don't have the tools to distinguish effectively between "legal, reasonable, legitimate" copying vs. whatever the opposite is.
My challenge to you, and the "I bought it so I should be able to copy it" crowd, is to USE YOUR SMARTS to DESIGN TPM THAT WILL MEET YOUR NEEDS, yet also stop people from copying and mass distribution of protected content.
More importantly (for this discussion), if the copyright law were revoked, why would anyone try to make money by publishing a book? If it's unsuccessful, you lose money. If it's successful, it'll be ripped off, and you lose money. Either way, you lose.
They wouldn't. Given that income encourages people to publish, and encouraging people to publish is beneficial to society, revoking copyright would probably be a bad idea. What's your point?
Exactly that revoking copyright is a bad idea. So we agree on this.