on the subject. First, consumers and people have fair use rights to make copies for personal use. That is something that has to be considered and something that has proven over time to not cause content providers to go out of business. Now has it hurt their sales? Potentially, I'd even argue probably, but to what extent I am not sure. However, I'd lean towards a change in the format to prevent fair use being illegal.
Second, personal means personal and I'd wager that personal extends to your immediate family only. Not to brothers across the country, and definitely not to neighbors. Does this mean that your neighbor/friend/co-worker can't come watch your tape of the Super Bowl or listen to the latest Michael Jackson CD? No, but you can't make them a copy of the tape/CD or send them an MP3. That is not fair use, that is abuse and theft.
Lastly, whether the practices of the RIAA/Sony/Columbia/Every distributor is right wrong or immoral is a separate argument. Their business practices regarding musicians is separate from their right to hold copyrights. Personally I think that music/video/etc. is not "work for hire", and artists should see more $$, but who holds the copyright is separate from whether or not it should be enforced.
This story is amazing and sad. On more than one front.
I see lots of discussion about whether the products of this company is unhealthy or their practices of production should be changed.
Where is the outrage for the executives? The people who wrote those memos and were in charge of Monsanto SHOULD BE JAILED!!!
Also where is the outrage at the victims in this community? A poor community? Like South Chicago, East St Louis, South Central LA, Harlem, etc.
Corporations need to have some ethics. The only way to mandate these ethics is to impose criminal as well as civil liabilities for officers, executives, AND managers.
Money should no longer be the only motivator in this day and age. We are too prosperous (in the US) to not include ethics as a part of the corporate business model. Companies routinely overpay for goodwill. Not only for companies, but also to retain executives. Why can't there be a cost assigned to ethical values as well?
Stories like this are shameful and a blot on the record of the greatest country in the world.
This reminds me of the cable boxes that are available in the back pages of Popular Science. For US$300 you can get a box that descrambles the signal from the cable company and lets you view all their content for free.
Should these guys be arrested/shut down/sued?
My argument would be no. They are selling a product that allows you to transform a signal of information. If the cable company broadcasts this signal into your house (their choice) then you should be able to own that signal and do with it what you wish. If the cable company really wants to stop this, they need to stop transmitting it into your house. And the argument its too expensive to send a tech to stop the signal, then that's their issue. Not yours. Personally I don't see a problem with them (though I've never purchased one).
Is this the same as KaaZa?
Not really.
The difference here is that KaaZa is assisting you in re-broadcasting the signal from some content provider to others. Now most content includes a warning that you cannot redistribute the content in a commercial environment, and it is intended for private use. So is it legal to share this with your friends?
You might get some argument from the content providers, but I doubt anyone would enforce this. So are the KaaZa users your friends? I doubt this would stand up in any legal sense because the KaaZa program shares your content with people You do not know.
Another point. Is KaaZa "inciting a riot"? In the sense they are promoting an illegal activity? I'm not sure and I'm sure there are plenty of arguments both ways. I do think, however, that if their servers are being used, then they have some amount of liability and could be compelled to release user information (web logs, emails, etc.). Should they? I'm not sure. I'm on the fence with this one.
A few things that I think you should keep in mind. Redistributing content from a CD, a DVD, or some other source it illegal. There is no fair use argument here. You are plainly stealing content. Now backing it up on your computer, burning a CD and listening to it, etc. is not. That is your right to reuse the content. If you alter the content, perhaps sample the music and add something (vocals, guitar, etC) to differentiate it from the original, then you can redistribute it. However, you have to make the effort to truly differetiate you content from the original. Adding an introduction to the beginning of a song is NOT differentiating it.
So what's the solution?
Who knows? This is a tough question. Personally I lean more towards prosecuting the offenders (users of KaaZa) than the product provider (KaaZa).
Some of the comments are amazing. Apparently quite a bit a Linux users (or at least/.ers) feel that cost IS an issue, perhaps even more so than closed v. free.
Companies exist to make money. Period. Non-profits also have to make some money to cover their costs, otherwise they do not continue to exist.
Not that companies shouldn't have to maintain some accountability, or even incorporate some morality into their functioning, but covering costs is not a bad thing.
Ximian is providing a service and asking you to pay for it. Perhaps you can get around it, but is it really worth it? Isn't your time worth something? Maybe not for college students, maybe not for single folk, but for the working married ones, time = $$ and I'd be happy to pay for the product or service. So what if you pay the equivalent of one XP unit (are we now measuring all Linux products/services in terms of their MS counterparts?) over a year and half? You have received something AND you have helped to support a company.
How many of you that use Linux contribute something back? How many of you have found a bug/written a driver/provided some software? Very, very, VERY few of you. Probably most of you have downloaded RedHat/Debian or whatever distro you have without paying a dime! Where's your support? Posting on slashdot? Pah-leese!
Face reality and pay for what you use. You aren't being charged an exhorbitant amount and you are helping to support, expand, grow, and mature Linux products.
Jerry Pournelle wrote an interesting essay, including a proposal at Byte this week (). One of the things he mentions, and something I believe, is that Microsoft should incorporate some ethical behaviors into their model of operation.
My questions for you is do you think that a corporation should have some ethical motives alongside their profit motive? Microsoft may be a distinct case due to their position in their marketplace (software), but there are probably other similar entities, indeed, AT&T was another example a few decades ago, with others even further in the past.
Thanks for taking your time to participate on Slashdot.
Any security protection will deter 80-90%of the people. Of the remaining people, 1-2% will not be deterred by anything and the rest will take advantage of the work of the 1-2%. Copy protection doesn't work in the digital world as well as it works in the analog world. It would seem that perhaps the laws governing the digitial world ought to be different from the analog world, perhaps even different for different types of digital "ideas".
What is your opinion of the best way to implement copyright, patent, or other Intellectual Property protection for authors while protecting fair use rights of consumers?
Any security protection will deter 80-90%of the people. Of the remaining people, 1-2% will not be deterred by anything and the rest will take advantage of the work of the 1-2%. Copy protection doesn't work in the digital world as well as it works in the analog world. It would seem that perhaps the laws governing the digitial world ought to be different from the analog world, perhaps even different for different types of digital "ideas".
What is your opinion of the best way to implement copyright, patent, or other Intellectual Property protection for authors while protecting fair use rights of consumers?
Any security protection will deter 80-90%of the people. Of the remaining people, 1-2% will not be deterred by anything and the rest will take advantage of the work of the 1-2%. Copy protection doesn't work in the digital world as well as it works in the analog world. It would seem that perhaps the laws governing the digitial world ought to be different from the analog world, perhaps even different for different types of digital "ideas".
What is your opinion of the best way to implement copyright, patent, or other Intellectual Property protection for authors while protecting fair use rights of consumers?
How much $$ is enough?
First, our society is much more capitalist than democratic, but it is still the best system out there.
Second, while we are built on the idea that anyone can succeed, no class limitations, success = money, etc., how much is enough? At what point should ethics or other considerations weigh upon a decision to do business? I would argue much sooner than they do now, but that is the price of freedom in the US. We allow the KKK, etc. to exist and print their nonsense in the name of freedom. Same for the companies. While I don't like it, it's their right in the US. If our companies don't sell the software, someone will.
Now is this against the NET? The NET is about freedom and an exchange of information, IMHO. However, there are things that we all would like censored. I don't want my kids seeing pornography, drug promotions, or even items that promote violence. I (government) am choosing to censor the rights of my kids (citizens) in my house (country). I have that right and so does the government of other countries. You can protest and urge those citizens to change their government, but it IS UP TO THEM, not you.
The US has a rich, well documented, and well known history of fu******-up other countries by interfering in their affairs. Remember the contras in Latin America? Iran? Iraq? Vietnam? The list can grow longer and longer. We can seek to influence others, but we should not directly assist them. I think we are making a mistake in Afghanistan that will come back to haunt us. Let that country deal with itself. We should not be playing God.
Am I torn here? Yes. On one hand our capitalist society dictates that we should allow companies to make their own decisions. On the other hand, should they support an oppresive regiem? Don't know. I don't like it, but if we do not then someone else will. I think it's a lost cause either way.
The web works now. If you do not wish to provide "free" information, then you can charge. www.wsj.com, www.asptoday.com and numerous other sites charge a subscription fee to view some (or all) of their content. My site is free and ad supported. Why? We want to provide a service but need to generate revnue for hosting, content, etc. If advertising dried up, we would either scale back, charge our readers, or give up.
If more sites are having financial issues, they should stop working "@ the Speed of Stupid" and revisit their business model.
Software schedules can be somewhat estimated, but only with a "team" of people that work actively to get better. The Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon developed a model for improving software engineering. It mainly works by capturing lots of data about your projects and using that in developing estimates for the next time. The bottom line is a team that adopts this mentality is constantly
seeking to improve their methods.
Difficult to do for a small project (lots of overhead). Almost impossible for an individual.
Most individuals get better by getting more experienced AND having a better code base from which to grab snippets/widgets/objects/etc.
Most of us overestimate the work we can do, get distracted with other items (other projects, fixes, etc). We also get distracted with
/.:).
Not only are we distracted, but we all code with our own styles. In doing so, one thing I think nearly every programmer is guilty of is not seeking enough input from others. Whether this is users for UI design, or colleagues with which we must later integrate, we make assumptions as we proceed. Quite a bit of time is lost once we start to integrate components together from different developers.
One last thought, software is nothing like building a physical structure. It is more like painting a picture where there is a feedback loop. As you do something, you not only learn, but are affected by the result. The next stroke you make/line you code/note you play is affected by what you just did. If we could focus only on the original plan without being affected by something that happens in the design, out estimates might be better.
Mark Minasi (a well known Windows author) wrote a book called The Software Conspiracy. In this book he examined many EULAs from the legal point of view. There are a number of arguments made about where these agreements violate law, but the main one is a contract of adhesion. In other words, you cannot see the contract until you buy or try to install the product.
The absurdity of this becomes really obvious if you extend this to another topic. For example, what if you could not read the contract for purchasing your car until after you'd purchased the car? How many of you would go for that?
As far as the EBay discussion goes, MS has a right to prevent resales of these products. This happens all the time in the real world. Ever go to a restaurant and see the little Heinz ketchup bottles labeled "Not for resale"? That's what it means. There are lower priced distribution channels for distributing these things and they cannot be resold in the retail market.
Same for the OEM software. It is legally tied to the hardware. If you choose to install Linux and boot M$ Windows, you should still include the Windows software when you sell the machine. Legally, that's the only way it can be used.
Now I'm not condoning this. It's not a specific MS thing, lots of software companies have similar outrageous claims. You used to not be able to sell your Gauntlet firewall, period!!! They locked the hardware/software to your IP and you had to "obtain" permission from the vendor before transferring a license. That's worse than this case.
One DRM will continue to advance. Artists and others who wish to produce media/works deserve to be compensated if they wish. The question becomes how we handle this. In my ideal world...
-- Non-encrypted formats will continue to exist for those who choose to distribute this way.
-- EncrypteOf the top of my head...
One DRM will continue to advance. Artists and others who wish to produce media/works deserve to be compensated if they wish. The question becomes how we handle this. In my ideal world...
-- Non-encrypted formats will continue to exist for those who choose to distribute this way.
-- Encrypted formats will be built for new media (video/audio/stills) that is difficult to crack (nothing is impossible). These formats will require the use of an authentication for an individual using their hardware of choice along with some type of smart card along with a password/pin. The item will be usable for some number of times/length of time. This will be some small payment amount, similar to micro payments.
-- We will get some type of "key" downloaded onto the hardware. This key can be transferred to someone else WITHOUT cost. If I purchase an old Beatles song and decide a month later that I don't want it, I should be able to "give" this to my co-worker. We easily connect our hardware devices together and I "give" him my key. No longer can I play the work. Perhaps he even "buys" the song for half price and I can then repurchase if I wish.
-- Patents/copyrights will have their length shortened. Perhaps we need to develop different lengths for different media. Movies are copyrighted for 5 yrs. Music, 3 yrs. These are just ideas, personally I am not sure what lengths I'd like.
-- Items that lose their copyright/patent will be released into the public deomain. Once in the public domain, anyone can distribute/reformat/alter the works, though they cannot be resold commercially without some compensation to the author. Perhaps the reuse should be 10% of the cost of current media?
-- What if I could "rent" a song, say the new CD from Brittany Spears for my son for 3 months. Suppose if cost $2. I could drop this onto an MP3 player for him, or perhaps it would be automatically burned on my Sony DRM machine (that cost $200) onto a CD that would work for 3 months. I'd do it. He'd be tired of it after that. What if I could "reactivate" that CD next year for $1 for another 3 or 6 months. It's still be worth it.
-- Relatively few of us actually copy CDs for others. Once (if in the real world) media companies recognize this, they will start to actually develop programs that people will use (and want to use). My time is more valuable and I'd tell a friend to buy his own copy.
Don't forget the following when exmaining DRM
-- It must be convenient to be successful. If it is difficult for me to use, I will not use it and commerically it will not succeed. If my mom can purchase a music CD (online, download, etc) easily and it costs $1 to listen to 10 times, or for a week, and it is a simple button push, she'll do it. If it requires efforts to use or circumvent, she won't use it.
-- The economy of defeating the encryption must be below that of using it. I've downloaded movies (that are in theaters) from the Internet and viewed them. They suck. The quality is so far below that of renting from Blockbuster or going to see the movie, it's not worth the cost. Audio is different, but there will be some economy of scale that works.
-- No encrpytion is foolproof
-- 90% (or so) of people will be defeated by minimal encrpytion
-- 1% (or so) of people will never be defeated by ANY encrpytion
-- 9% (or so) of people will take advantage of the work of the 1% to defeat encryption.
These are some quick thoughts, and I really welcome feedback. If DRM is really to move forward (not just get implemented), everyone has to have realistic discussion of the rights of everyone, artists, consumers, and companies.
This is a great ruling because the local law is in fact based on the "secondary effects". An online presence does not include those "secondary effects".
I agree that online activity should not in fact get around laws, but laws need to be enacted that can apply to cyberspace. The key questions become, where does the transaction occur? Mail order companies have taken advantage of transactions occuring out-of-state to avoid taxation. This is one reason prices are lower from mail-order stereo shops in NY. Is this legal? If I order something over the phone, have I ordered something in CO (where I live) or NY (where the firm is)? Whose tax rates apply?
What about gambling? This is illegal in most places, but now I can call or use the Internet to place a bet from CO in the Caymans, Bahamas, etc. What law applies here?
IMHO, the originator of the transaction bears the responsibility. If someone in CO places a bet or views pornography, then they have in fact moved and placed the transaction in CO, regardless of where the transaction is "fulfilled".
Of course, I leave out the problems of tracking, enforcement, etc. In fact I do not believe there is any "good" or practical solution for these problems. The reason we usually track the supplier is that it is easier to enforce.
What if all stereo suppliers moved to the Bahamas to avoid US taxes? What should the US (or any other country) do to recoup their taxes? Do they have a right to do so? Failure to enforce this can(and will) lead to a "race to the lowest denominator" similar to that seen when welfare laws in the US vary by state. The "loosest" states get hit harder with a disproportionate amount of claims than neighboring states with strictor laws.
Cyberspace and transactions taking place across it pose a problem for governments and businesses alike. Perhaps the tax on electricity will be used to compensate. I don't have solutions, and haven't seen any good ones either. That alone makes me nervous.
Stay informed and complain to your representatives when you see something you do not like. Only the loud voices will be heard.
What a dumb comment.
Reverse Engineering is not about displaying facts, it is interperting the operation of an item by observing the reults. Or decompiling and re-writnig the operation. in your own words.
This was not a list of facts that Soren copied. This was his IP and he should get credit.
You whiney, cheating, stealing programmers ought to be ashamed.
You want people to take your Open Source stuff, use it and then redistribute all code. You want the GPL to rule and code to be free.
Soren is giving the code away. He just want's credit. The developers of Apache, the Kernal, etc. all give their code away, but THEY WANT CREDIT. These guys all use this to cash in and get jobs writing more code, supporting people, etc. BUT THEY GET THE CREDIT.
You assholes make me sick. If you want to GPL your code and give it away, fine. That's your choice. If you want to resuse BSD or other code, fine. But taking credit for it as your work IS NOT!!!
I think this is a well written argument. But it is also a complex arguement. There are any number of things wrong with the practices of many corporations, but it is still the best system in the world, at least in the US.
Does a company owe you anything? I think that they do owe something. US history (can't speak to other countries) is full of instances where companies abuse workers and take advantage of them. A number of workers' rights have been exacted into law to prevent these abuses.
So what does a company owe you? IMHO, they owe you more than your next paycheck. As your tenure increases, a company owes you notification of ending your job. The same applies in the reverse. You owe them notice. I don't have a great solution for implementing this. Humans are driven by emotions and if you tell your boss you are leaving in 4 wks, you might get launched. I'd vote for a bill to prevent early terminations for people who have notified you.
This gets complicated. What about pregnancies? Does a person (male or female) who takes leave for a new baby owe the company some amount of time back at work? I think they do.
Ah, my thoughts run amuck...
What about CEOs (and other executives) who are paid quite handsomely in stock (options or shares)? Often they have a short sighted view of the company because their compensation is tied to company success. Not necessarily profit/loss/market share performance. Usually stock price performance. My wife's company, for example, has laid off quite a few people. Does the business justify it? I don't know, but I doubt it's all business related. I think that as the stock has declined in price, there have been more actions taken. To me, that is contrary to the fundamental nature of a company. A company exists to continue to exist and derive a profit. Working to raise the stock price, which has very little relation to the success of the company, is poor business practice. Once you have issued stock, unless you need to issue more, stock price has no relation to the company's performance. Except in investor's perceptions.
I saw a comment on workers leaving poorly run companies or those with poor benefits. The problem here is that information does not flow well between companies. There is no place you can go look and see what a company really does with it's employees or how they are treated. Unless you know someone in the company, you are gambling when you accept a job.
The flip side of that is a company does not know what they will get when they hire you. They are (to some extent), gambling that you will do a good job. We have all seen people hired who did not perform. Sometimes that is the person's fault (laziness, lack of QA, etc.) and sometimes they are not suited to the job. However, it's a learning experience. For both the company and the employee.
IMHO (again), employees have some responsibility to perform. I would not want to see IT worked unionized with some certifications (not the current ones, new ones that measure skills), some expectation of performance, and some rules or guidelines to protect the company. At the same time, employees should be somewhat protected from random or stock-related firing. I'm not suggesting a company cannot fire people or lay them off, but some notice is required and some benefits must continue.
One last pet peeve and I'll cease rambling today. I'm well paid. As a DBA/developer, I'm paid near the top of my profession. However, one thing I think should be implemented is that public companies (can't regulate privates) should have some rules to prevent huge disparities between bottom and top level workers. Corporations often give out huge salaries to attract top level talent at the expense of others. I'm not looking for actual caps, but some type of relative percentages between a entry-level manager and a CEO. Between a Director and a programmer. Maybe we would have to use averages among levels, but I think the disparities contribute to inefficiencies as well as ethical abuse of non-executive employees. Especially in public companies. I think there is quite a bit of fiscal irresponsibility to shareholders in this area.
Thanks for listening.
One note: CORBA does not (necessarily) apply if a company goes bankrupt or ends their health benefits. Keep that in mind if you are the sole wage earner in a family.
Thanks for the update, albeit a scary one indeed.
As an author, I am truly unsure of where I stand on IP and copyright laws. Piracy is an issue, freedoms are at stake, but the rights of content creators are also at stake.
F*^# Sony, New Riders, WROX, Time Warner, etc. These are the companies that are in business to make $$ per-eee-id! They care not about the content, the use of the content, the benefit or damage cause by the content. Only the popularity of the content and how many copies can be sold.
While these companies have some legitimate arguments regarding author's creativity and their right to be paid, it makes me sick as an author because they don't care about me. If I will write a book for $50 and a free copy, they' be happy to pay me.
Leave out the rebuttals against the companies and have a discussion on rights, content, and the freedoms that are enjoyed by many of us.
BTW, the US needs to enforce its own laws, not those of other countries. With regard to copyrights, let China and other countries choose to enforce or not.
Slashdot Mirror
on the subject. First, consumers and people have fair use rights to make copies for personal use. That is something that has to be considered and something that has proven over time to not cause content providers to go out of business. Now has it hurt their sales? Potentially, I'd even argue probably, but to what extent I am not sure. However, I'd lean towards a change in the format to prevent fair use being illegal.
Second, personal means personal and I'd wager that personal extends to your immediate family only. Not to brothers across the country, and definitely not to neighbors. Does this mean that your neighbor/friend/co-worker can't come watch your tape of the Super Bowl or listen to the latest Michael Jackson CD? No, but you can't make them a copy of the tape/CD or send them an MP3. That is not fair use, that is abuse and theft.
Lastly, whether the practices of the RIAA/Sony/Columbia/Every distributor is right wrong or immoral is a separate argument. Their business practices regarding musicians is separate from their right to hold copyrights. Personally I think that music/video/etc. is not "work for hire", and artists should see more $$, but who holds the copyright is separate from whether or not it should be enforced.
This story is amazing and sad. On more than one front.
I see lots of discussion about whether the products of this company is unhealthy or their practices of production should be changed.
Where is the outrage for the executives? The people who wrote those memos and were in charge of Monsanto SHOULD BE JAILED!!!
Also where is the outrage at the victims in this community? A poor community? Like South Chicago, East St Louis, South Central LA, Harlem, etc.
Corporations need to have some ethics. The only way to mandate these ethics is to impose criminal as well as civil liabilities for officers, executives, AND managers.
Money should no longer be the only motivator in this day and age. We are too prosperous (in the US) to not include ethics as a part of the corporate business model. Companies routinely overpay for goodwill. Not only for companies, but also to retain executives. Why can't there be a cost assigned to ethical values as well?
Stories like this are shameful and a blot on the record of the greatest country in the world.
This reminds me of the cable boxes that are available in the back pages of Popular Science. For US$300 you can get a box that descrambles the signal from the cable company and lets you view all their content for free.
Should these guys be arrested/shut down/sued?
My argument would be no. They are selling a product that allows you to transform a signal of information. If the cable company broadcasts this signal into your house (their choice) then you should be able to own that signal and do with it what you wish. If the cable company really wants to stop this, they need to stop transmitting it into your house. And the argument its too expensive to send a tech to stop the signal, then that's their issue. Not yours. Personally I don't see a problem with them (though I've never purchased one).
Is this the same as KaaZa?
Not really.
The difference here is that KaaZa is assisting you in re-broadcasting the signal from some content provider to others. Now most content includes a warning that you cannot redistribute the content in a commercial environment, and it is intended for private use. So is it legal to share this with your friends?
You might get some argument from the content providers, but I doubt anyone would enforce this. So are the KaaZa users your friends? I doubt this would stand up in any legal sense because the KaaZa program shares your content with people You do not know.
Another point. Is KaaZa "inciting a riot"? In the sense they are promoting an illegal activity? I'm not sure and I'm sure there are plenty of arguments both ways. I do think, however, that if their servers are being used, then they have some amount of liability and could be compelled to release user information (web logs, emails, etc.). Should they? I'm not sure. I'm on the fence with this one.
A few things that I think you should keep in mind. Redistributing content from a CD, a DVD, or some other source it illegal. There is no fair use argument here. You are plainly stealing content. Now backing it up on your computer, burning a CD and listening to it, etc. is not. That is your right to reuse the content. If you alter the content, perhaps sample the music and add something (vocals, guitar, etC) to differentiate it from the original, then you can redistribute it. However, you have to make the effort to truly differetiate you content from the original. Adding an introduction to the beginning of a song is NOT differentiating it.
So what's the solution?
Who knows? This is a tough question. Personally I lean more towards prosecuting the offenders (users of KaaZa) than the product provider (KaaZa).
Some of the comments are amazing. Apparently quite a bit a Linux users (or at least /.ers) feel that cost IS an issue, perhaps even more so than closed v. free.
Companies exist to make money. Period. Non-profits also have to make some money to cover their costs, otherwise they do not continue to exist.
Not that companies shouldn't have to maintain some accountability, or even incorporate some morality into their functioning, but covering costs is not a bad thing.
Ximian is providing a service and asking you to pay for it. Perhaps you can get around it, but is it really worth it? Isn't your time worth something? Maybe not for college students, maybe not for single folk, but for the working married ones, time = $$ and I'd be happy to pay for the product or service. So what if you pay the equivalent of one XP unit (are we now measuring all Linux products/services in terms of their MS counterparts?) over a year and half? You have received something AND you have helped to support a company.
How many of you that use Linux contribute something back? How many of you have found a bug/written a driver/provided some software? Very, very, VERY few of you. Probably most of you have downloaded RedHat/Debian or whatever distro you have without paying a dime! Where's your support? Posting on slashdot? Pah-leese!
Face reality and pay for what you use. You aren't being charged an exhorbitant amount and you are helping to support, expand, grow, and mature Linux products.
I've got $1 on copy protection being broken 14 hours, 18 minutes after release.
Jerry Pournelle wrote an interesting essay, including a proposal at Byte this week (). One of the things he mentions, and something I believe, is that Microsoft should incorporate some ethical behaviors into their model of operation.
My questions for you is do you think that a corporation should have some ethical motives alongside their profit motive? Microsoft may be a distinct case due to their position in their marketplace (software), but there are probably other similar entities, indeed, AT&T was another example a few decades ago, with others even further in the past.
Thanks for taking your time to participate on Slashdot.
Dr. Lessig,
Any security protection will deter 80-90%of the people. Of the remaining people, 1-2% will not be deterred by anything and the rest will take advantage of the work of the 1-2%. Copy protection doesn't work in the digital world as well as it works in the analog world. It would seem that perhaps the laws governing the digitial world ought to be different from the analog world, perhaps even different for different types of digital "ideas".
What is your opinion of the best way to implement copyright, patent, or other Intellectual Property protection for authors while protecting fair use rights of consumers?
Dr. Lessig,
Any security protection will deter 80-90%of the people. Of the remaining people, 1-2% will not be deterred by anything and the rest will take advantage of the work of the 1-2%. Copy protection doesn't work in the digital world as well as it works in the analog world. It would seem that perhaps the laws governing the digitial world ought to be different from the analog world, perhaps even different for different types of digital "ideas".
What is your opinion of the best way to implement copyright, patent, or other Intellectual Property protection for authors while protecting fair use rights of consumers?
Dr Felton,
Any security protection will deter 80-90%of the people. Of the remaining people, 1-2% will not be deterred by anything and the rest will take advantage of the work of the 1-2%. Copy protection doesn't work in the digital world as well as it works in the analog world. It would seem that perhaps the laws governing the digitial world ought to be different from the analog world, perhaps even different for different types of digital "ideas".
What is your opinion of the best way to implement copyright, patent, or other Intellectual Property protection for authors while protecting fair use rights of consumers?
How much $$ is enough?
First, our society is much more capitalist than democratic, but it is still the best system out there.
Second, while we are built on the idea that anyone can succeed, no class limitations, success = money, etc., how much is enough? At what point should ethics or other considerations weigh upon a decision to do business? I would argue much sooner than they do now, but that is the price of freedom in the US. We allow the KKK, etc. to exist and print their nonsense in the name of freedom. Same for the companies. While I don't like it, it's their right in the US. If our companies don't sell the software, someone will.
Now is this against the NET? The NET is about freedom and an exchange of information, IMHO. However, there are things that we all would like censored. I don't want my kids seeing pornography, drug promotions, or even items that promote violence. I (government) am choosing to censor the rights of my kids (citizens) in my house (country). I have that right and so does the government of other countries. You can protest and urge those citizens to change their government, but it IS UP TO THEM, not you.
The US has a rich, well documented, and well known history of fu******-up other countries by interfering in their affairs. Remember the contras in Latin America? Iran? Iraq? Vietnam? The list can grow longer and longer. We can seek to influence others, but we should not directly assist them. I think we are making a mistake in Afghanistan that will come back to haunt us. Let that country deal with itself. We should not be playing God.
Am I torn here? Yes. On one hand our capitalist society dictates that we should allow companies to make their own decisions. On the other hand, should they support an oppresive regiem? Don't know. I don't like it, but if we do not then someone else will. I think it's a lost cause either way.
The web works now. If you do not wish to provide "free" information, then you can charge. www.wsj.com, www.asptoday.com and numerous other sites charge a subscription fee to view some (or all) of their content. My site is free and ad supported. Why? We want to provide a service but need to generate revnue for hosting, content, etc. If advertising dried up, we would either scale back, charge our readers, or give up.
If more sites are having financial issues, they should stop working "@ the Speed of Stupid" and revisit their business model.
Software schedules can be somewhat estimated, but only with a "team" of people that work actively to get better. The Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon developed a model for improving software engineering. It mainly works by capturing lots of data about your projects and using that in developing estimates for the next time. The bottom line is a team that adopts this mentality is constantly
seeking to improve their methods.
Difficult to do for a small project (lots of overhead). Almost impossible for an individual.
Most individuals get better by getting more experienced AND having a better code base from which to grab snippets/widgets/objects/etc.
Most of us overestimate the work we can do, get distracted with other items (other projects, fixes, etc). We also get distracted with
/.
Not only are we distracted, but we all code with our own styles. In doing so, one thing I think nearly every programmer is guilty of is not seeking enough input from others. Whether this is users for UI design, or colleagues with which we must later integrate, we make assumptions as we proceed. Quite a bit of time is lost once we start to integrate components together from different developers.
One last thought, software is nothing like building a physical structure. It is more like painting a picture where there is a feedback loop. As you do something, you not only learn, but are affected by the result. The next stroke you make/line you code/note you play is affected by what you just did. If we could focus only on the original plan without being affected by something that happens in the design, out estimates might be better.
Mark Minasi (a well known Windows author) wrote a book called The Software Conspiracy. In this book he examined many EULAs from the legal point of view. There are a number of arguments made about where these agreements violate law, but the main one is a contract of adhesion. In other words, you cannot see the contract until you buy or try to install the product.
The absurdity of this becomes really obvious if you extend this to another topic. For example, what if you could not read the contract for purchasing your car until after you'd purchased the car? How many of you would go for that?
As far as the EBay discussion goes, MS has a right to prevent resales of these products. This happens all the time in the real world. Ever go to a restaurant and see the little Heinz ketchup bottles labeled "Not for resale"? That's what it means. There are lower priced distribution channels for distributing these things and they cannot be resold in the retail market.
Same for the OEM software. It is legally tied to the hardware. If you choose to install Linux and boot M$ Windows, you should still include the Windows software when you sell the machine. Legally, that's the only way it can be used.
Now I'm not condoning this. It's not a specific MS thing, lots of software companies have similar outrageous claims. You used to not be able to sell your Gauntlet firewall, period!!! They locked the hardware/software to your IP and you had to "obtain" permission from the vendor before transferring a license. That's worse than this case.
Of the top of my head...
One DRM will continue to advance. Artists and others who wish to produce media/works deserve to be compensated if they wish. The question becomes how we handle this. In my ideal world...
-- Non-encrypted formats will continue to exist for those who choose to distribute this way.
-- EncrypteOf the top of my head...
One DRM will continue to advance. Artists and others who wish to produce media/works deserve to be compensated if they wish. The question becomes how we handle this. In my ideal world...
-- Non-encrypted formats will continue to exist for those who choose to distribute this way.
-- Encrypted formats will be built for new media (video/audio/stills) that is difficult to crack (nothing is impossible). These formats will require the use of an authentication for an individual using their hardware of choice along with some type of smart card along with a password/pin. The item will be usable for some number of times/length of time. This will be some small payment amount, similar to micro payments.
-- We will get some type of "key" downloaded onto the hardware. This key can be transferred to someone else WITHOUT cost. If I purchase an old Beatles song and decide a month later that I don't want it, I should be able to "give" this to my co-worker. We easily connect our hardware devices together and I "give" him my key. No longer can I play the work. Perhaps he even "buys" the song for half price and I can then repurchase if I wish.
-- Patents/copyrights will have their length shortened. Perhaps we need to develop different lengths for different media. Movies are copyrighted for 5 yrs. Music, 3 yrs. These are just ideas, personally I am not sure what lengths I'd like.
-- Items that lose their copyright/patent will be released into the public deomain. Once in the public domain, anyone can distribute/reformat/alter the works, though they cannot be resold commercially without some compensation to the author. Perhaps the reuse should be 10% of the cost of current media?
-- What if I could "rent" a song, say the new CD from Brittany Spears for my son for 3 months. Suppose if cost $2. I could drop this onto an MP3 player for him, or perhaps it would be automatically burned on my Sony DRM machine (that cost $200) onto a CD that would work for 3 months. I'd do it. He'd be tired of it after that. What if I could "reactivate" that CD next year for $1 for another 3 or 6 months. It's still be worth it.
-- Relatively few of us actually copy CDs for others. Once (if in the real world) media companies recognize this, they will start to actually develop programs that people will use (and want to use). My time is more valuable and I'd tell a friend to buy his own copy.
Don't forget the following when exmaining DRM
-- It must be convenient to be successful. If it is difficult for me to use, I will not use it and commerically it will not succeed. If my mom can purchase a music CD (online, download, etc) easily and it costs $1 to listen to 10 times, or for a week, and it is a simple button push, she'll do it. If it requires efforts to use or circumvent, she won't use it.
-- The economy of defeating the encryption must be below that of using it. I've downloaded movies (that are in theaters) from the Internet and viewed them. They suck. The quality is so far below that of renting from Blockbuster or going to see the movie, it's not worth the cost. Audio is different, but there will be some economy of scale that works.
-- No encrpytion is foolproof
-- 90% (or so) of people will be defeated by minimal encrpytion
-- 1% (or so) of people will never be defeated by ANY encrpytion
-- 9% (or so) of people will take advantage of the work of the 1% to defeat encryption.
These are some quick thoughts, and I really welcome feedback. If DRM is really to move forward (not just get implemented), everyone has to have realistic discussion of the rights of everyone, artists, consumers, and companies.
This is a great ruling because the local law is in fact based on the "secondary effects". An online presence does not include those "secondary effects".
I agree that online activity should not in fact get around laws, but laws need to be enacted that can apply to cyberspace. The key questions become, where does the transaction occur? Mail order companies have taken advantage of transactions occuring out-of-state to avoid taxation. This is one reason prices are lower from mail-order stereo shops in NY. Is this legal? If I order something over the phone, have I ordered something in CO (where I live) or NY (where the firm is)? Whose tax rates apply?
What about gambling? This is illegal in most places, but now I can call or use the Internet to place a bet from CO in the Caymans, Bahamas, etc. What law applies here?
IMHO, the originator of the transaction bears the responsibility. If someone in CO places a bet or views pornography, then they have in fact moved and placed the transaction in CO, regardless of where the transaction is "fulfilled".
Of course, I leave out the problems of tracking, enforcement, etc. In fact I do not believe there is any "good" or practical solution for these problems. The reason we usually track the supplier is that it is easier to enforce.
What if all stereo suppliers moved to the Bahamas to avoid US taxes? What should the US (or any other country) do to recoup their taxes? Do they have a right to do so? Failure to enforce this can(and will) lead to a "race to the lowest denominator" similar to that seen when welfare laws in the US vary by state. The "loosest" states get hit harder with a disproportionate amount of claims than neighboring states with strictor laws.
Cyberspace and transactions taking place across it pose a problem for governments and businesses alike. Perhaps the tax on electricity will be used to compensate. I don't have solutions, and haven't seen any good ones either. That alone makes me nervous.
Stay informed and complain to your representatives when you see something you do not like. Only the loud voices will be heard.
What a dumb comment.
Reverse Engineering is not about displaying facts, it is interperting the operation of an item by observing the reults. Or decompiling and re-writnig the operation. in your own words.
This was not a list of facts that Soren copied. This was his IP and he should get credit.
You whiney, cheating, stealing programmers ought to be ashamed.
You want people to take your Open Source stuff, use it and then redistribute all code. You want the GPL to rule and code to be free.
Soren is giving the code away. He just want's credit. The developers of Apache, the Kernal, etc. all give their code away, but THEY WANT CREDIT. These guys all use this to cash in and get jobs writing more code, supporting people, etc. BUT THEY GET THE CREDIT.
You assholes make me sick. If you want to GPL your code and give it away, fine. That's your choice. If you want to resuse BSD or other code, fine. But taking credit for it as your work IS NOT!!!
I think this is a well written argument. But it is also a complex arguement. There are any number of things wrong with the practices of many corporations, but it is still the best system in the world, at least in the US.
Does a company owe you anything? I think that they do owe something. US history (can't speak to other countries) is full of instances where companies abuse workers and take advantage of them. A number of workers' rights have been exacted into law to prevent these abuses.
So what does a company owe you? IMHO, they owe you more than your next paycheck. As your tenure increases, a company owes you notification of ending your job. The same applies in the reverse. You owe them notice. I don't have a great solution for implementing this. Humans are driven by emotions and if you tell your boss you are leaving in 4 wks, you might get launched. I'd vote for a bill to prevent early terminations for people who have notified you.
This gets complicated. What about pregnancies? Does a person (male or female) who takes leave for a new baby owe the company some amount of time back at work? I think they do.
Ah, my thoughts run amuck...
What about CEOs (and other executives) who are paid quite handsomely in stock (options or shares)? Often they have a short sighted view of the company because their compensation is tied to company success. Not necessarily profit/loss/market share performance. Usually stock price performance. My wife's company, for example, has laid off quite a few people. Does the business justify it? I don't know, but I doubt it's all business related. I think that as the stock has declined in price, there have been more actions taken. To me, that is contrary to the fundamental nature of a company. A company exists to continue to exist and derive a profit. Working to raise the stock price, which has very little relation to the success of the company, is poor business practice. Once you have issued stock, unless you need to issue more, stock price has no relation to the company's performance. Except in investor's perceptions.
I saw a comment on workers leaving poorly run companies or those with poor benefits. The problem here is that information does not flow well between companies. There is no place you can go look and see what a company really does with it's employees or how they are treated. Unless you know someone in the company, you are gambling when you accept a job.
The flip side of that is a company does not know what they will get when they hire you. They are (to some extent), gambling that you will do a good job. We have all seen people hired who did not perform. Sometimes that is the person's fault (laziness, lack of QA, etc.) and sometimes they are not suited to the job. However, it's a learning experience. For both the company and the employee.
IMHO (again), employees have some responsibility to perform. I would not want to see IT worked unionized with some certifications (not the current ones, new ones that measure skills), some expectation of performance, and some rules or guidelines to protect the company. At the same time, employees should be somewhat protected from random or stock-related firing. I'm not suggesting a company cannot fire people or lay them off, but some notice is required and some benefits must continue.
One last pet peeve and I'll cease rambling today. I'm well paid. As a DBA/developer, I'm paid near the top of my profession. However, one thing I think should be implemented is that public companies (can't regulate privates) should have some rules to prevent huge disparities between bottom and top level workers. Corporations often give out huge salaries to attract top level talent at the expense of others. I'm not looking for actual caps, but some type of relative percentages between a entry-level manager and a CEO. Between a Director and a programmer. Maybe we would have to use averages among levels, but I think the disparities contribute to inefficiencies as well as ethical abuse of non-executive employees. Especially in public companies. I think there is quite a bit of fiscal irresponsibility to shareholders in this area.
Thanks for listening.
One note: CORBA does not (necessarily) apply if a company goes bankrupt or ends their health benefits. Keep that in mind if you are the sole wage earner in a family.
What a fucking moron! Are you a skinhead? If a black man shot the President, would you go around beating up all other men of color?
Listen as*wipe, the wrapping on someone's head signifies their religeous belief. It has nothing to do with their politics.
Millions of US citizens have skin that is not white. Should we persecute everyone who isn't a WASP?
I'm not for censorship, but you are pushing the rights and limits of free speech while showcasing your ignorance and cowardice, Anonymous Coward!
Thanks for the update, albeit a scary one indeed. As an author, I am truly unsure of where I stand on IP and copyright laws. Piracy is an issue, freedoms are at stake, but the rights of content creators are also at stake. F*^# Sony, New Riders, WROX, Time Warner, etc. These are the companies that are in business to make $$ per-eee-id! They care not about the content, the use of the content, the benefit or damage cause by the content. Only the popularity of the content and how many copies can be sold. While these companies have some legitimate arguments regarding author's creativity and their right to be paid, it makes me sick as an author because they don't care about me. If I will write a book for $50 and a free copy, they' be happy to pay me. Leave out the rebuttals against the companies and have a discussion on rights, content, and the freedoms that are enjoyed by many of us. BTW, the US needs to enforce its own laws, not those of other countries. With regard to copyrights, let China and other countries choose to enforce or not.