If I publish a utility that can be used to pirate materials in addition to distribute legal data, and it's popular (think Napster), it's not long before I'm shut down for 'contributory infringement' of copyright, eh?
If I publish a utility that can be used to spread viruses in addition to distribute legal data, and it's popular (Outlook, for instance), it's a 'feature.'
I rather like my semantic web, thank you very much. Did it ever occur to you that maybe the web isn't useful to anybody because nobody has anything useful to say?;)
While I agree with what you are saying in theory, we have presentation languages (ie. postscript, pdf) that would do quite well for transmitting your data over the web. Why don't you go bark at adobe for implementing linking in a braindead way in their PDF plugin, since that alone is why it is unsuitable as a web presentation language?
Is it then not our civic duty to take a stand against it, however we must sacrifice?
Oh my, that sounds ominous. I had an idea. It's not a great one, but it would be amusing.
Let's declare a cold war on the DMCA. Everyone, violate it. Loudly. Blatantly. Turn yourself in. Do whatever it takes to get arrested.
Now, in the realm of civil disobedience, this is standard practice. However, my thought is this: We have this wonderful economy (ha, ha!) and tons of tax money go to the building of prisons and the housing of prisoners. Let's "spend" the U.S. economy into oblivion! Let's go to prison, they'll have to build more!;)
I don't remember who I was talking to about schooling here in the Grate State of Texas, (intentional mispeeling;) but the phrase with which our conversation was summarized was "Factory schools for factory workers!"
The post to which I reply brings up the point that I think is most important in the whole 'music-sharing vs. piracy' debate.
The convenience of napster or my.mp3.com was far more important than the 'freedom.' Because Napster ignored copyright law, and mp3.com obeyed it to the letter (note that the end result is similar either way), they were both capable of providing what everybody found so useful.
That is to say, immediate access to all music, or all MY music, respectively. This cannot be provided in the context of copyright law because there are a number of different copyright holders who must offer permission to distribute.
If we just sign on the members of the RIAA (or they collectively buy one service and distribute over it) we have wiped out the possiblity of finding anything 'unsanctioned' (ie. independent, small-label, 'fringe') in our service, eliminating some of its value, even if we have the majority of the copyrighted musical content of the era in one central location.
The other problematic aspect of that proposition is this: with centralized control, you would need centralized distribution. With centralized distribution, you can easily incur horrific bandwidth costs. Horrific costs => increasing prices.
P2P is the only way to go, and there's not really an answer that allows for the convenience of all of your music, in a P2P setting, that doesn't have the potential to violate copyright law in SOME way or another.
Don't accept the propaganda that the Iraqi invasion was entirely unprovoked. The Kuwaiti drilling operations near the border with Iraq had utilized the "drill down, then over" model. The oil we were buying from Kuwait had started to come from Iraqi oil fields.
So no, no one in the area would be happy, and yes, oil-using nations might retaliate - but what are you going to do? Even before an invasion, Kuwait was not friendly with Iraq, and certainly wasn't going to stop taking their oil because Saddam Hussein asked nicely.
Just another.02usd.
(And no, I don't think Iraq was justified. Invasions are rarely, if ever, justitied. I am just providing the convenient excuse, much like North Korea is a convenient excuse.)
It would seem to me that the split that you describe is/should happen on more than one level.
I have recently realized how awful my favorite linux (Debian) is. I love debian dearly, but, unfortunately, absolutely no one in their right mind could use it (stock) without being fairly familiar with some pretty obscure stuff.
Which, in my opinion, is great.
I use my computer for different KINDS of things than those people in their right minds. I don't have an office suite. I won't have an office suite. I haven't had a printer in... 7 years? I like to DEVELOP things - which is something the home user isn't often interested in.
The parallel is simple: My mother doesn't need something configurable. At all. My mother needs a Macintosh, but unfortunately, they were more expensive than the box she bought and they won't run absolutely any random shit without additional effort.
So I guess what I'm saying is, yes, Mom, get a disposable computer. I'll make you neat stuff for your disposable computer, from my development box that it's totally, %100 configurable, in EVERY way.
Let's take Paypal for example. Paypal currently is a perfectly acceptable way for people to send money to each other, but they would need to be able to send money to each other _no matter where they have an account._ I say this because leaving paypal in control of this sort of thing could be disaster. After all, there's no reason for them NOT to do the draconian things people fear.
So, they need to be able to intercommunicate with other escrow services. xml-rpc requests are easy to generate (flash's actionscript and javascript both already have generic clients written for them) and would fit the bill nicely. The use of xml-rpc would allow for realtime responses, and it works effectively over https, so there's already an encryption scheme in place that any decently motivated ecommerce person will be familiar with.
(Keep in mind that paypal's premier/business account hardly fits the bill: %2.2 of the transaction + $.30usd is kind of steep, since that forces people to keep transactions above $.50. Maybe we (I) should suggest another type of transaction model to them, for "web tips" and transactions under $1.00.)
So this is just theoretical, mind you, but here's a sample transaction:
You come to my site. You see that I have some neat short stories or something, and people say I'm legit (there's really something inside the pay part)and you want to browse my whole collection.
So paypal has provided a link, which will allow you to send money directly to me (like the referral link they have, sort of.)
If you've logged in to paypal, you just click the link and it delivers you a dialog like:
"Pay $1.00 to kallisti_without_spam@morpho.dar.net from account your_email_address@goes.here.com for 1 month of site access (Description of service/content)?"
And so you accept the charges and MY SITE, having used XML-RPC to determine that indeed, you have made this payment, delivers you a 'token' in the form of a cookie. This token is encrypted using my own private key and contains information like the duration of validity and your paypal-given e-mail address.
I'm honest because other people would tell you if I'm not. You want what I have because I have a preview. People can/will tell you if these things suck.
It would be best if the escrow service also kept reviews of you (like e-bay) and maybe even if they signed your tokens as well.
The reason I call them tokens is because we should also have a browser plug-in or somesuch that stores these in another place, not just as cookies. That way, other programs (napster-esque or search-engine-esque ones) could load all of your tokens and provide them so that you see content that you have 'unlocked' as it were.
Then, you enter my site, look around. If I've been good, great. If not, then you get to write a really negative review of me. If the escrow services were to keep this information, I could only rate you on a per-transaction basis. Thus, I couldn't ruin your livelihood by just attacking you with a bot.;) In the same way, YOU couldn't just trump up your own reputation.
The reasons I see this as valuable are:
#1 - allows for inter-operation of several different kinds of program (search engines, filesharing programs, web browsers) over payed and non-payed content.
#2 - Prices are not burdensome (transactions above $5.00 or so will be handled differently, recurring transactions will be handled differently)
#3 - The escrow services forces clarity as to what you are paying for.
#4 - Content isn't per-use, it's over a period of time. If you download all of my programs in that month/week/day, great. If you don't, even better for me.
#5 - Escrow services depend on the trust of their users to remain in business, as do content providers. No draconian measures necessary.
I'm really tempted to try this out, if only I had some good content.;) The major thing would be getting paypal to allow very quick links for payment. Maybe if some of you porn-site-running people out there would like to try it out?
Reading through the links from this post I was suddenly struck by an assumption that I have been making (and that I think a lot of people here have been making, as well.)
Micropayments are wonderful and awful. They would allow us to pay for content on the web in a way that we could handle, but they would also provide us with a new added stressor: The question "To click, or not to click?"
But the links in the above article raise the question:
Why not micropay subscriptions? Let me theorize.
1. Escrow services with digital money like PayPal provide some easy interchange with some sort of RPC or other. Note that this theorizes competition, which would be a good thing. Allowing MS to dominate this field would be a bad thing.
2. Artists, Musicians, Cartoonists, short-film-makers, journalists, etc.. have sites. They don't have to be affiliated with anybody, they don't have to be sponsored. They charge tags on html pages that contain content that can be downloaded with information about what they are. Easy digital signature creation so that artists can sign their work.
4. Search engines, Napster, Gnutella etc.. Except that the file-sharing apps themselves provide access to sample/freely available material from these people's websites. Those sites to which you have subscribed also allow you to download their free stuff.
(The reason for this is that it is currently MORE CONVENIENT for me to get music for free from Gnutella or something like that than it is for me to go to the store. Also, the effect of being exposed to a wide variety of everything is another useful aspect of the napster-esque system.)
I think that these principles would create a system with an incentive to not bother to share info, and also provide a way for us to stick it to "The Man" (tm). Artists could not play that game anymore.
It relies on three things:
#1 - Easy-to-use escrow services with standards
#2 - Easy-to-use search applications, with standards
#3 - Effective ways for people to trust the artist.
Please, rip this apart. I'd like to know what people think.
Something that frightens me...
"at least the dwindling minority here that aren't 15 year old kids anyway."
One of the things that is incredibly useful about the internet in general is the fact that those people who are 18 years of age are capable of getting information. When I say information, I'm not talking about Napster or pr0n.
The internet isn't legally required to turn the kid over to their parents if they're asking about abortions, and it's currently possible to find out about being gay and southern baptist from people who have been there. Just make search engines record micropayments, and TADA! your abusive dad comes in with the "Child Protective Services" search on his credit card bill and locks you in the closet.
Thank you, I like the idea that you don't have to be an adult to surf the web, thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
If I publish a utility that can be used to pirate materials in addition to distribute legal data, and it's popular (think Napster), it's not long before I'm shut down for 'contributory infringement' of copyright, eh?
If I publish a utility that can be used to spread viruses in addition to distribute legal data, and it's popular (Outlook, for instance), it's a 'feature.'
I hate our legal system.
I rather like my semantic web, thank you very much. Did it ever occur to you that maybe the web isn't useful to anybody because nobody has anything useful to say? ;)
While I agree with what you are saying in theory, we have presentation languages (ie. postscript, pdf) that would do quite well for transmitting your data over the web. Why don't you go bark at adobe for implementing linking in a braindead way in their PDF plugin, since that alone is why it is unsuitable as a web presentation language?
"Well, we're a commerical venture and we've gone about registering this trademark, your honor..."
Is it then not our civic duty to take a stand against it, however we must sacrifice?
Oh my, that sounds ominous. I had an idea. It's not a great one, but it would be amusing.
Let's declare a cold war on the DMCA. Everyone, violate it. Loudly. Blatantly. Turn yourself in. Do whatever it takes to get arrested.
Now, in the realm of civil disobedience, this is standard practice. However, my thought is this: We have this wonderful economy (ha, ha!) and tons of tax money go to the building of prisons and the housing of prisoners. Let's "spend" the U.S. economy into oblivion! Let's go to prison, they'll have to build more! ;)
So I'm re-iterating, but just to let you know...
I don't remember who I was talking to about schooling here in the Grate State of Texas, (intentional mispeeling ;) but the phrase with which our conversation was summarized was "Factory schools for factory workers!"
The post to which I reply brings up the point that I think is most important in the whole 'music-sharing vs. piracy' debate.
The convenience of napster or my.mp3.com was far more important than the 'freedom.' Because Napster ignored copyright law, and mp3.com obeyed it to the letter (note that the end result is similar either way), they were both capable of providing what everybody found so useful.
That is to say, immediate access to all music, or all MY music, respectively. This cannot be provided in the context of copyright law because there are a number of different copyright holders who must offer permission to distribute.
If we just sign on the members of the RIAA (or they collectively buy one service and distribute over it) we have wiped out the possiblity of finding anything 'unsanctioned' (ie. independent, small-label, 'fringe') in our service, eliminating some of its value, even if we have the majority of the copyrighted musical content of the era in one central location.
The other problematic aspect of that proposition is this: with centralized control, you would need centralized distribution. With centralized distribution, you can easily incur horrific bandwidth costs. Horrific costs => increasing prices.
P2P is the only way to go, and there's not really an answer that allows for the convenience of all of your music, in a P2P setting, that doesn't have the potential to violate copyright law in SOME way or another.
Don't accept the propaganda that the Iraqi invasion was entirely unprovoked. The Kuwaiti drilling operations near the border with Iraq had utilized the "drill down, then over" model. The oil we were buying from Kuwait had started to come from Iraqi oil fields.
So no, no one in the area would be happy, and yes, oil-using nations might retaliate - but what are you going to do? Even before an invasion, Kuwait was not friendly with Iraq, and certainly wasn't going to stop taking their oil because Saddam Hussein asked nicely.
Just another .02usd.
(And no, I don't think Iraq was justified. Invasions are rarely, if ever, justitied. I am just providing the convenient excuse, much like North Korea is a convenient excuse.)
It would seem to me that the split that you describe is/should happen on more than one level.
I have recently realized how awful my favorite linux (Debian) is. I love debian dearly, but, unfortunately, absolutely no one in their right mind could use it (stock) without being fairly familiar with some pretty obscure stuff.
Which, in my opinion, is great.
I use my computer for different KINDS of things than those people in their right minds. I don't have an office suite. I won't have an office suite. I haven't had a printer in ... 7 years? I like to DEVELOP things - which is something the home user isn't often interested in.
The parallel is simple: My mother doesn't need something configurable. At all. My mother needs a Macintosh, but unfortunately, they were more expensive than the box she bought and they won't run absolutely any random shit without additional effort.
So I guess what I'm saying is, yes, Mom, get a disposable computer. I'll make you neat stuff for your disposable computer, from my development box that it's totally, %100 configurable, in EVERY way.
So rpc/escrow.
Let's take Paypal for example. Paypal currently is a perfectly acceptable way for people to send money to each other, but they would need to be able to send money to each other _no matter where they have an account._ I say this because leaving paypal in control of this sort of thing could be disaster. After all, there's no reason for them NOT to do the draconian things people fear.
So, they need to be able to intercommunicate with other escrow services. xml-rpc requests are easy to generate (flash's actionscript and javascript both already have generic clients written for them) and would fit the bill nicely. The use of xml-rpc would allow for realtime responses, and it works effectively over https, so there's already an encryption scheme in place that any decently motivated ecommerce person will be familiar with.
(Keep in mind that paypal's premier/business account hardly fits the bill: %2.2 of the transaction + $.30usd is kind of steep, since that forces people to keep transactions above $.50. Maybe we (I) should suggest another type of transaction model to them, for "web tips" and transactions under $1.00.)
So this is just theoretical, mind you, but here's a sample transaction: You come to my site. You see that I have some neat short stories or something, and people say I'm legit (there's really something inside the pay part)and you want to browse my whole collection.
So paypal has provided a link, which will allow you to send money directly to me (like the referral link they have, sort of.)
If you've logged in to paypal, you just click the link and it delivers you a dialog like:
"Pay $1.00 to kallisti_without_spam@morpho.dar.net from account your_email_address@goes.here.com for 1 month of site access (Description of service/content)?"
And so you accept the charges and MY SITE, having used XML-RPC to determine that indeed, you have made this payment, delivers you a 'token' in the form of a cookie. This token is encrypted using my own private key and contains information like the duration of validity and your paypal-given e-mail address.
I'm honest because other people would tell you if I'm not. You want what I have because I have a preview. People can/will tell you if these things suck.
It would be best if the escrow service also kept reviews of you (like e-bay) and maybe even if they signed your tokens as well.
The reason I call them tokens is because we should also have a browser plug-in or somesuch that stores these in another place, not just as cookies. That way, other programs (napster-esque or search-engine-esque ones) could load all of your tokens and provide them so that you see content that you have 'unlocked' as it were.
Then, you enter my site, look around. If I've been good, great. If not, then you get to write a really negative review of me. If the escrow services were to keep this information, I could only rate you on a per-transaction basis. Thus, I couldn't ruin your livelihood by just attacking you with a bot. ;) In the same way, YOU couldn't just trump up your own reputation.
The reasons I see this as valuable are:
#1 - allows for inter-operation of several different kinds of program (search engines, filesharing programs, web browsers) over payed and non-payed content.
#2 - Prices are not burdensome (transactions above $5.00 or so will be handled differently, recurring transactions will be handled differently)
#3 - The escrow services forces clarity as to what you are paying for.
#4 - Content isn't per-use, it's over a period of time. If you download all of my programs in that month/week/day, great. If you don't, even better for me.
#5 - Escrow services depend on the trust of their users to remain in business, as do content providers. No draconian measures necessary.
I'm really tempted to try this out, if only I had some good content. ;) The major thing would be getting paypal to allow very quick links for payment. Maybe if some of you porn-site-running people out there would like to try it out?
Reading through the links from this post I was suddenly struck by an assumption that I have been making (and that I think a lot of people here have been making, as well.) Micropayments are wonderful and awful. They would allow us to pay for content on the web in a way that we could handle, but they would also provide us with a new added stressor: The question "To click, or not to click?" But the links in the above article raise the question: Why not micropay subscriptions? Let me theorize. 1. Escrow services with digital money like PayPal provide some easy interchange with some sort of RPC or other. Note that this theorizes competition, which would be a good thing. Allowing MS to dominate this field would be a bad thing. 2. Artists, Musicians, Cartoonists, short-film-makers, journalists, etc.. have sites. They don't have to be affiliated with anybody, they don't have to be sponsored. They charge tags on html pages that contain content that can be downloaded with information about what they are. Easy digital signature creation so that artists can sign their work. 4. Search engines, Napster, Gnutella etc.. Except that the file-sharing apps themselves provide access to sample/freely available material from these people's websites. Those sites to which you have subscribed also allow you to download their free stuff. (The reason for this is that it is currently MORE CONVENIENT for me to get music for free from Gnutella or something like that than it is for me to go to the store. Also, the effect of being exposed to a wide variety of everything is another useful aspect of the napster-esque system.) I think that these principles would create a system with an incentive to not bother to share info, and also provide a way for us to stick it to "The Man" (tm). Artists could not play that game anymore. It relies on three things: #1 - Easy-to-use escrow services with standards #2 - Easy-to-use search applications, with standards #3 - Effective ways for people to trust the artist. Please, rip this apart. I'd like to know what people think.
Something that frightens me... "at least the dwindling minority here that aren't 15 year old kids anyway." One of the things that is incredibly useful about the internet in general is the fact that those people who are 18 years of age are capable of getting information. When I say information, I'm not talking about Napster or pr0n. The internet isn't legally required to turn the kid over to their parents if they're asking about abortions, and it's currently possible to find out about being gay and southern baptist from people who have been there. Just make search engines record micropayments, and TADA! your abusive dad comes in with the "Child Protective Services" search on his credit card bill and locks you in the closet. Thank you, I like the idea that you don't have to be an adult to surf the web, thanks.