There is a difference, namely the acknowledgement of cost of production. No software is truely free to make, only to copy. This is why I take exception to the notion that software is supposed to be free, you aren't considering the costs of the programmer. As a operating system programmer with a student loan that cost more than most people's car, I find it a ridiculous idea that I should give up a large amount of income for you to freeload off me. What would be the point in me doing something if it won't improve the quality of my life? I see no reason to give up my income so someone else gets a free ride off my debt.
Let's face the facts, socialism has been proven to be the greatest failure of the 20th century. Therefore, MS windows and GNU linux need viable competition to ensure that innovation has a place on our computers. The point is to seize the power from the multinational corporates and the global organizations that reduce innovation by their centralised planning strategies. The key to the future of software development is with distributed computing, the thing you have to ask yourself is "do you want to find microsoft has a monopoly on distributed operating systems in ten years ? or do you want to have a diverse selection of systems that can run on your computer ?"
I'm making a new OS and apps for it. Kaos has a Java 2 (JDK 1.4) thin binary structure that can do just that. The main point is to compile Java apps for your specific hardware. I see no reason why I can't distribute new versions of apps from a new P2P protocol I making with very strong encryption. However, I'm in between the extremes of Microsoft and Linux. I say I can do open source but only distribute code to those who buy the software on the CD or DVD. Why should I support freeloading or competition from my code if I have a large student loan to pay off?
Hopefully, this is the best of both worlds. I get paid fairly for use of my code and I allow people to improve the code if they buy the software. Perhaps this is a better method of working than the extremes presented by MS and GPL.
I see no reason why that doesn't contradict itself, the apps are where the real value is anyway.
Actually, I'm planning on selling my Kaos operating system @ $40 and then making the money off professional apps. You only get basic apps with the CD version. Professional apps could be bundled in the DVD version, as there would be enough space for large apps on several platforms.
No, my story is accurate. I've checked with a free software magazine editor in china.
The software can be as wide open as this yet it can still be exploited by the Cisco Chinese Firewall for any democracy activists or Falen Gong followers.
No, my story is accurate. I've checked with a free software magazine editor in china.
The software can be as wide open as this yet it can still be exploited by the Cisco Chinese Firewall for any democracy activists or Falen Gong followers.
Can we rip out the robot and drive like maniacs while the secret service shoots at us? I'd really love to see that Johnny robot freak out at peak time traffic too, maybe he should be allowed to give them the fingers and swear like real cab drivers?
Surfers Paradise is really for the arabs, we saw dozens travelling round in harems. I did get around the rural mountains around surfers. The main point was the shops were rubbish. All my other trips to Australia have been to brisbane, but I did spent 2 weeks in sydney ages ago. Obviously you are american to assume a kiwi nickname is american. It's more like NZ$1 = AU80 and prices were pretty much the same, just the exchange makes it expensive.
If I really wanted to go somewhere boring, we would have gone to the USA. Maybe some of those dull casino towns in Nevada, or California. I'm perfectly happy to live in the cultural capital of Australia, Wellington New Zealand.
Which is exactly why LCDs should be excluded, CRTs use some very toxic phospherous. Another possible reason is because CRTs use a lot more power than LCDs. Given the power problems in California, this makes sense. The real problem is not that america hasn't got enough power, it's that america hasn't got enough energy efficiency.
I'm currently programming a filesharing protocol called Samizdat, it's a better way than what has happened to Napster. I have it so the protocol is used by a sharing program just like http is used by a web browser.
What this lawsuit is effectiively saying is that musiccity is responsible for people sharing their music, DVDs, porn, software, etc. You may as well sue Tim Berners Lee for all the piracy that goes through http, clearly the developer is not responsible for the actions of the user. I predict that musiccity will have a court case and transfer the programs to a pay based system like Napster is now.
I'm currently programming a filesharing protocol called Samizdat, I think this is to make you read the musiccity legal disclaimer at least. A protocol would be better because I could spilt the sharing work and client just like http and the web browser does. If musiccity had a clear distinction between the protocol and the program, the users could just use a different client. I'm guessing that if they can send an error to every user, then they could have spyware or adware installed in the client programs.,
Personally, I agree with your prediction. Morpheus will get the same treatment as Napster did in the courts.
AOL/TW , Disney , Universal , Microsoft, EMI? Maybe we should lay blame at the actions of the RIAA and MPAA for making media so inaccessable. Personally the worst thing for me is CSS stopping me from skipping the copyright or any other stuff tagged as 'info'. I think DECSS is a very good idea because it allows people to skip past copyright notices and advertisements on DVDs you own.
Actually it's not just about recycling, did you notice they were talking about CRT monitors? Not LCD displays? What this will do is encourage consumers to buy LCDs for their computers. I wonder if Apple is behind this idea to get more iMacs sold? It would make sense to make LCD a standard feature as that would ensure someone comes up with a LCD that has print quality color output.
Really? I was told that condoms are obscene by some christian students, do you think I'd accept their definition? The funny thing is never bothered to kick people off the lab computers for porn. Once I saw half my class look at women with eels (don't ask) and only the older women said they thought it was impossible... Nobody in their right minds would masturbate in public, they would deserve to be expelled for that kind of sexual harassment. I know women who masturbate and several of them definately enjoy porn, you just never see that unless you know them well enough or if they're drunk.
I was in Australia for 10 days in July at surfers paradise. Australia was very boring, especially the TV and newspapers. Why their beer costs more there than it does here is just as stupid as the way they fucked up GST. Because Australia has always bored me, I don't think I'll bother looking for work or setting up a company there. The main problem with the internet in Australia is that everything gets logged and censored, they do screw it up a lot. Maybe that's why broadband costs so much unless you use a pirate wireless system.
I used to look up stuff like information on durex and leave it open when I left the library computers. Some religious wanker would always get offended, but I say screw them. Why should I go down to their level? It doesn't matter who owns it, it's who uses it that matters. Censorship is just a waste of time and money which could go on new books. The university I was at hadn't bought any new books in 4 years, yet was spending it's money on new computers and useless censorware. That university library is now 6 years out of date, effectively protecting the christian minority lobby from the free internet. I'm glad I bought my own books, I'd never be capable of catching up with today's topics if was dependant on the uni library.
> A poorly worded argument by a person who more than likely has unclear thoughts on the matter.
Unclear thoughts on the matter? I've been working in this field since I was 12. My thoughts are clear enough to convert people from GNU to BSD. >Your examples are trivial and largely irrelevant. Pointing to a few examples where software, books, movies, whatever, isn't either obsolete or a non-seller (that is, sells in trivial quantities) after 5-20 years doesn't negate the fact that most are. Sure, UNIX has been at the heart of computing for the past several decades...but its not the same UNIX that was originally released from Bell Labs.
The world's best artists are irrelevant? when they play them everyday for 50 years? Perhaps Peter Jackson shouldn't have made a film on a 50 year old book trilogy? UNIX has been around for 32 years, so what if it's called BSD, Linux or OS X. It's still unix. > That UNIX is long dead, and there's no reason why the code from that shouldn't be public domain. Same thing with Linux -- the Linux kernel available today differs significantly from that 5 years ago. If unix is dead why is it still in active use by millions of people? Why do millions choose every year to get new unix operating systems? The main difference with linux today is mainstream acceptance & Linus Torvalds has a real job. > MS Windows? Win95 and WinME were separated by 5 years, and have considerable differences beyond the GUI. No reason why Win95 shouldn't be public domain now. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=28522&ci d=3067 236 Imagine a future where windows is GPL, Al Gore is President and the professional users have all switched to Mac OS XI. > Sure, there are some books which sell for decades, even hundreds, of years after their release in significant numbers. But MOST DON'T. How about Shakespeare, Aesop Fable's, the bothers Grim, K Marx, Freud, George Orwell, Arthur C Clark, Isaac Asimov, JRR Tolkien? I see no reason why people shouldn't be able to profit from their work for about a hundred years even if they don't sell many at the beggining. > And even for those that do, an author and (after he's dead) his family shouldn't be able to profit for a hundred+ years on somewthing which only took a few years to create. Why not be honest enough to pay for a valuable book? clearly a classic work is worth paying for. > No significant extra incentive is provided to authors by promising them life +75 years profit -- certainly not enough to offset the loss the public suffers from these works being controlled and unavailable to everyone.
I'm not argueing for life + 75, I want life + 25 or 50 years from publication. The works will be available in the library before the public "suffers" >Your arguments that the "family" deserve to profit off of an artists work is ridiculous. Really ? I suppose no rapper should have to pay for sampling a dead artist ? I suppose the family will have to survive on just the income of the living? > Holding IP is like a title, a position. If I'm a professor at a university, I have the right to that position, but not the right to pass it onto my son -- who doesn't deserve it and didn't work for it -- after I'm dead.
Actually most professors don't deserve the title or the position. Most of them have never done an honest days work in their life. Only a few professors I've met deserve their position. > An author's "family" did not create his work, thus they don't deserve to hold the work's IP rights. America is, aside from a democracy, largely a meritocracy.
America is basically a monarchy, how else do you think George W Bush won Florida State? By a majority vote? By his merits, if any? Who is the Governor of Florida? > As for "registration" for copyrights, patents, etc, who said it has to be expensive? The costs of registration could be paid for by the state. Registration IS necessary for copyrights, because copyrights are intended to cover ORIGINAL work.
Ok, I'd like you to find any government office which does paperwork for free. I'd like to see some lazy civil servants fly out of their offices on pigs. > Under the current system, everything you say or write is automatically copyrighted... that's obsurd. I shouldn't be able to say some quick catchy phrase like, "We are all slowly, but surely, dying," copyright it and then sue someone else who says or writes that.
Not at all obsurd, you get automatic protection by law of any idea you have. It's not like the current President is going to have any need for it. If you wanted to copyright a statement on Global Warming, then go right ahead. I suggest you copyright the next Presidential statement on the american plans to combat Global Warming. Do the world a favor. > The idea of registration is to prevent people from trying to fraudulently copyright things which aren't original works, or which are trivial/insignificant. I know about that, having personally had some companies fraudulently register works based on my original ideas. > As for your talk of "living off 2 cents a copy from your works," you misunderstand my argument. I never said any such thing. That's in the article, it refers to the mechanical copies compensation dating back to 1907. (piano roll copies) > What I said is that artists should be able to profit -- for the alotted time -- off of their works, but not to control how their works are used. Compensation without control. I only have an issue with the radically short time you and Lessig support. 50 or life + 25 is enough. > Authors, for example, would be compensated for people who obtained their books, or read their books on TV, but would not have the right to prevent anyone from using their work in any way, so long as they were compensated.
This is reasonable as long as it's not plagiarism, which is how microsoft "innovates". > You should also note that while having works transfer to the public domain quicker, while not allowing artists to capture the full market value of their works, also alleviates them from expenditures they would have to make themselves. True, they wouldn't be able to profit off of books for more than 15-20 years; but they would also have free access to any book of such age.
What rot, the expenditures can't be alleviated as easily as that. You want to cut off the profit just when it's made the effort worthwhile. > The cost to them is more than made up for by the fact that they'd have less restricted, free access to much more information. But from your arguments, it seems like you think that artists and their families "deserve" to be compensated for an infinite period of time (practically speaking, from the authors pov, as he dies) for a work which took a finite amount of time and effort to create. Life + 25 or 50 years isn't infinite, people deserve compensation for their property. Which is what your estate becomes when they inherit it, I was paid thousands of dollars which I inherited 20 years after my grandmother died. You are argueing that my grandomother's shares should be state property because she died. That is theft of my rightful inheritance. > This is clearly nonsense. If a woodsman carves a fine chest, which is artful and beatiful, that took a finite period of time to make; like in the case of a writer, it also took some creative license. The woodsman does not get to profit off of the chair forever; he gets to sell it once and that's it.
If his family wanted to, they could sell his carving patterns to a factory after his death. I have carvings that were manufactured after the artist died and they are beautiful. > There's no reason to elevate artists above working society such that they get paid the rest of their lives for work which took perhaps a year to create.
It's been a fact of life for thousands of years. Look at cave paintings, Homer, Shakespeare, Arthur C Clark, Gerge Orwell. > For your clarification, let me post my suggestions for IP-protection terms for inventions, books, music, movies, and software.
[Your arguements has been so longwinded and mind-numbing that I took a swim over the road at my beach before I answered this part] > 1. Software. Copyright should last 5 years. This allows the developer plenty of time to make a significant profit off of his program, and also puts the program in the public domain at a time in which it still has relevance and is not an artifact useful only for "educational purposes".
I would say a bare minimum of 25 years, this would prevent the spectre of mediocre code being revived by the GPL geeks. The world would be a worse place if Richard Stallman's fans release Windows 98 GPL next year. > 2. Music. Copyright should last 10 years. This allows the muscician plenty of time to make a significant profit off of his music, and also puts the music in the public domain at a time when most people can still easily relate to it.
Definately not, the last thing anyone wants is early nineties rap by Vanilla Ice becoming a standard sample in today's music. The worse thing possible would be a comeback of Milli Vanilli in today's pop charts. It's bad enough we have Britney Spears and NSYNC today, I don't want that crap played again in 2012 by some jackass DJ. > 3. Movies. Copyright protection should last 10 years. This allows the movie-producers plenty of time to make a significant profit off of their movie, and also puts the movie in the public domain at a time when it will still be culturally relevant.
How about all those movies which were made in the Cold War Era? The Soviet Union is no longer relevant, yet was a common theme in 1992. How about Black Hawk Down, a current movie about the events in Somalia in October 1993? I think the only movie which will be as culturally relevant in 2012 as it is in 2002 will be Lord of The Rings. Star Wars episode 2, maybe. > 4. Books. Copyright protection should last 20 years. This allows the author plenty of time to make a significant profit off of his book, and also puts the book in public domain at a time when it will still be culturally relevant to most people. I think not, George Orwell's 1984 is still relevant, perhaps more so today than in 1948. Books can retain cultural relevance well beyond 20 years, have you ever read Shakespeare? > 5. Inventions. Patent protection should be afforded to individuals who actually invent something; there should not be patents on "life forms". Nor should corporate raiders in the US be able to patent something that was pioneered by indigenous peoples, but which the corporations contributed nothing to.
I agree wtih this part, people shouldn't patent DNA or turing's theeory of AI. see US patent 6,341,372 for an example of bad patents. Native medicines shouldn't be patented, but I support the right of the Amazon Indians who want to be paid for the use of their medicines. In New Zealand, the maori natives have spent $1 million on copyrighting a Made by Maori artist design, the logo cost $10 k, lawyers got the rest. > Limited patent protection should last 15 years, and should be strict in its granting. Every trivial invention that comes along does not deserve a patent. Business methods do not deserve patents. That is very reasonable, it's the law in New Zealand. We don't grant patents for "one-click-shopping" or pyramid shemes. > Furthermore, patents should account for alternate and independant invention. Patents should not be awarded which give an inventor the rights over any invention which accomplishes a specific ends, only over his particular implementation.
That would permit the avoidance of the patent and would effectively remove the use of patents. Patents are supposed to cover implementations of new technology. > Patents should also recognize the rights of "second comers". Many people may be working on a particular way to do something; just because one person comes up with a solution a day before the other 9 doesn't mean the other 9 should be locked out.
Not really, the other 9 could have just heard a rumor or found a reference to the original person's work. > 6. Combination works. Any work somehow combining any combination of the aforementioned should be protected piecemeal.
I think that would cause a patchy coverage of the work, it would be better to have a flat limit on compilational works. Say 20 or 25 years. > 7. The year by year extention plank, up to a maximum of 50% more time. If the owner of an IP work can show that they still make significant profits off of their work (i.e., perhaps 10% of the selling volume from the first year released), then they can get a yearly renewable extention.
Yearly renewal is too many and too costly, it's best done by 5 year chunks a few times. > Remember, in the beginning, intellectual property protection as established by the Founding Fathers only last 14 years. There's nothing wrong with short protection terms; nor do they decrease innovation.
If you bothered to read the article by Lessig, you'd note that america was born as a pirate nation and didn't extend these rights to foreigners. This was originally intended to freely use the British maps and charts by copying them for the War of Independance. > Rather, they increase it by reducing the cost of entry...artists/inventors have a larger public-domain pool to draw from in making their work when shorter terms exist. Furthermore, short terms force creators to create more.
Registering with the government costs more than automatic registration. Forcing people to create new editions constantly is the main problem of companies like MicroSoft. Quality, not Quantity. > One-time-wonders can't make money the rest of their lives off of one book, song, whatever; they have to continue producing things, continue working for most of their lives, just like the average person does.
I have no problem with NYSNC or Britney Spears being one time wonders, I just hope they make enough to buy their seats on the ISS space station and never come back. Would you really argue in favor of continual torture by those artists working for their whole lives? Can you say Cher? Micheal Jackson?
I'm willing to do this software at cost, I'm willing to get this done without those spam companies buying me out. What do you think? Would you be willing to pay $10 for no spam from known hosts? I'll make it so you can add updated addresses to the spam log (if it really is spam)
You don't reply to spam with remove me, my brothr did that once and I get dozens of spam each week now. Market forces apply to spam if people filter out spam before they read it. I frequently get spam which is offensive to me. I have my mail program set to delete typical spam, I have a cable modem and my cpu is fast enough to not make this noticable. Laws aren't needed, you just need a program that accesses a list of spammers to eliminate spam from your internet. look for spam host files.
I'll buy a Dual G6 110 GHz powermac, you'll be left with the Dell Pentium 7.
The Pentium 7 6.9 GHz has 1000 instructions in it's pipeline and also features "predictive stallman" to cope with the microsoft software ban. Ever since microsoft lost it's source code rights, RMS has had windows under GPL. Stallman has now got a hardware function in the Pentium 7 which checks for GPL licenses in the binaries. This has led to millions of professional windows users switching to Mac OS XI to avoid the limitations of a GPL system. Not even President Al Gore can convince america in the benefits of windows GPL, intel is dying and nobody gives a damn anymore.
This chip proves that conventional computing can continue to reach at least 110 GHz, which should be enough to run MicroSoft Farsite when it's released in 2012.
By 2012, quantum computing should be well established, effectively giving computing at the speed of light.
Yes, a beowulf cluster of opennic root servers would be the best way of running this project.
I'd want to have multiple failsafe opennic, then you wouldn't have the single Tier 1 master server. The way things stand now, opennic is fscked if Oakland has another power blackout.
I've worked on IP for half my life, doing video productions of local events, weddings, concerts, etc. I'm happy to only use copyright, I didn't even want to patent a major e-commerce system I developed that got stolen 4 years ago. The thing is, I'm actually in favor of capitalism not corporatism. Which is why I oppose most the IP ideas Lessig has. I see no reason why this silly idea of registering with the government would work, you'd only get copyright for the rich companies. I see no reason I should not patent my new technology if it's new, innovative and not obvious. Why not make my discoveries pay for the cost of research and development? That is how patents are supposed to work, as Benjamin Franklin originally intended.
Why do you think software changes radically in just 5 years? Only microsoft claims that is true. Radical changes in software are usually too buggy to work first time. Ideas are not clothes, clothes can wear out in 5 years but ideas can be used until they are updated.
How is the copyright on my video recordings of events like weddings or concerts in the public interest? I'd like to know how the records of the local basketball team 10 years ago is useful to the public. The only video work I've done that could be considered public interest was the first internet concert and the first midnight mass broadcast over the internet. Any interest would be purely academic, not personal interest. I was at those events, and would rather have watched paint dry or gone to a funeral than watch the whole thing.
I have students asking me to sell a 13 year old computer book, it's in high demand as the definition of the topic covered. I don't even know if the author is dead, but I'd be happy to pay for reprints of his work if the profits went to his family. I said life + 25 or 50 years, whichever is longer. This would be mean Elvis is going into public domain now, while his fans are still living.
Ok, you try to live off 2 per mechanical copy. See how much you get from faxes and emails of your works. Would you like it if your favorite author's family had to sell off the author's original works just to have enough money for their children? I think you've bought into a shallow arguement by a 2 bit law professor. You might as well say: All Your Ideas Are Belong To USA!
Does anyone want to give a reason why this ICANN article won't consider censorship as offtopic?
This is merely a reason to adopt http://www.opennic.unrated.net/">open nic as a viable alternative DNS.
Why don't you accept that an excess of corporate or governement control of the internet DNS would lead to censorship, regardless of the fascist or communist policies.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a difference, namely the acknowledgement of cost of production. No software is truely free to make, only to copy.
This is why I take exception to the notion that software is supposed to be free, you aren't considering the costs of the programmer.
As a operating system programmer with a student loan that cost more than most people's car, I find it a ridiculous idea that I should give up a large amount of income for you to freeload off me.
What would be the point in me doing something if it won't improve the quality of my life? I see no reason to give up my income so someone else gets a free ride off my debt.
Let's face the facts, socialism has been proven to be the greatest failure of the 20th century. Therefore, MS windows and GNU linux need viable competition to ensure that innovation has a place on our computers.
The point is to seize the power from the multinational corporates and the global organizations that reduce innovation by their centralised planning strategies.
The key to the future of software development is with distributed computing, the thing you have to ask yourself is
"do you want to find microsoft has a monopoly on distributed operating systems in ten years ? or do you want to have a diverse selection of systems that can run on your computer ?"
I'm making a new OS and apps for it. Kaos has a Java 2 (JDK 1.4) thin binary structure that can do just that. The main point is to compile Java apps for your specific hardware.
I see no reason why I can't distribute new versions of apps from a new P2P protocol I making with very strong encryption.
However, I'm in between the extremes of Microsoft and Linux. I say I can do open source but only distribute code to those who buy the software on the CD or DVD.
Why should I support freeloading or competition from my code if I have a large student loan to pay off?
Hopefully, this is the best of both worlds. I get paid fairly for use of my code and I allow people to improve the code if they buy the software.
Perhaps this is a better method of working than the extremes presented by MS and GPL.
I see no reason why that doesn't contradict itself, the apps are where the real value is anyway.
Actually, I'm planning on selling my Kaos operating system @ $40 and then making the money off professional apps. You only get basic apps with the CD version.
Professional apps could be bundled in the DVD version, as there would be enough space for large apps on several platforms.
The software can be as wide open as this yet it can still be exploited by the Cisco Chinese Firewall for any democracy activists or Falen Gong followers.
The software can be as wide open as this yet it can still be exploited by the Cisco Chinese Firewall for any democracy activists or Falen Gong followers.
Can we rip out the robot and drive like maniacs while the secret service shoots at us?
I'd really love to see that Johnny robot freak out at peak time traffic too, maybe he should be allowed to give them the fingers and swear like real cab drivers?
Surfers Paradise is really for the arabs, we saw dozens travelling round in harems. I did get around the rural mountains around surfers. The main point was the shops were rubbish.
All my other trips to Australia have been to brisbane, but I did spent 2 weeks in sydney ages ago.
Obviously you are american to assume a kiwi nickname is american. It's more like NZ$1 = AU80 and prices were pretty much the same, just the exchange makes it expensive.
If I really wanted to go somewhere boring, we would have gone to the USA. Maybe some of those dull casino towns in Nevada, or California.
I'm perfectly happy to live in the cultural capital of Australia, Wellington New Zealand.
Which is exactly why LCDs should be excluded, CRTs use some very toxic phospherous.
Another possible reason is because CRTs use a lot more power than LCDs. Given the power problems in California, this makes sense.
The real problem is not that america hasn't got enough power, it's that america hasn't got enough energy efficiency.
I'm currently programming a filesharing protocol called Samizdat, it's a better way than what has happened to Napster.
I have it so the protocol is used by a sharing program just like http is used by a web browser.
What this lawsuit is effectiively saying is that musiccity is responsible for people sharing their music, DVDs, porn, software, etc.
You may as well sue Tim Berners Lee for all the piracy that goes through http, clearly the developer is not responsible for the actions of the user.
I predict that musiccity will have a court case and transfer the programs to a pay based system like Napster is now.
I'm currently programming a filesharing protocol called Samizdat, I think this is to make you read the musiccity legal disclaimer at least.
A protocol would be better because I could spilt the sharing work and client just like http and the web browser does.
If musiccity had a clear distinction between the protocol and the program, the users could just use a different client.
I'm guessing that if they can send an error to every user, then they could have spyware or adware installed in the client programs.,
Personally, I agree with your prediction. Morpheus will get the same treatment as Napster did in the courts.
AOL/TW , Disney , Universal , Microsoft, EMI?
Maybe we should lay blame at the actions of the RIAA and MPAA for making media so inaccessable.
Personally the worst thing for me is CSS stopping me from skipping the copyright or any other stuff tagged as 'info'.
I think DECSS is a very good idea because it allows people to skip past copyright notices and advertisements on DVDs you own.
Actually it's not just about recycling, did you notice they were talking about CRT monitors? Not LCD displays?
What this will do is encourage consumers to buy LCDs for their computers. I wonder if Apple is behind this idea to get more iMacs sold?
It would make sense to make LCD a standard feature as that would ensure someone comes up with a LCD that has print quality color output.
Really? I was told that condoms are obscene by some christian students, do you think I'd accept their definition?
The funny thing is never bothered to kick people off the lab computers for porn.
Once I saw half my class look at women with eels (don't ask) and only the older women said they thought it was impossible...
Nobody in their right minds would masturbate in public, they would deserve to be expelled for that kind of sexual harassment.
I know women who masturbate and several of them definately enjoy porn, you just never see that unless you know them well enough or if they're drunk.
I was in Australia for 10 days in July at surfers paradise. Australia was very boring, especially the TV and newspapers.
Why their beer costs more there than it does here is just as stupid as the way they fucked up GST.
Because Australia has always bored me, I don't think I'll bother looking for work or setting up a company there.
The main problem with the internet in Australia is that everything gets logged and censored, they do screw it up a lot.
Maybe that's why broadband costs so much unless you use a pirate wireless system.
I used to look up stuff like information on durex and leave it open when I left the library computers.
Some religious wanker would always get offended, but I say screw them. Why should I go down to their level?
It doesn't matter who owns it, it's who uses it that matters. Censorship is just a waste of time and money which could go on new books.
The university I was at hadn't bought any new books in 4 years, yet was spending it's money on new computers and useless censorware.
That university library is now 6 years out of date, effectively protecting the christian minority lobby from the free internet.
I'm glad I bought my own books, I'd never be capable of catching up with today's topics if was dependant on the uni library.
That has to be the funnest shit I've seen in a long time. Have you heard the internet made easy MP3?
I have to do something cool for a special treat by next month.
> A poorly worded argument by a person who more than likely has unclear thoughts on the matter.
i d=3067 236 Imagine a future where windows is GPL, Al Gore is President and the professional users have all switched to Mac OS XI.
Unclear thoughts on the matter? I've been working in this field since I was 12. My thoughts are clear enough to convert people from GNU to BSD.
>Your examples are trivial and largely irrelevant. Pointing to a few examples where software, books, movies, whatever, isn't either obsolete or a non-seller (that is, sells in trivial quantities) after 5-20 years doesn't negate the fact that most are. Sure, UNIX has been at the heart of computing for the past several decades...but its not the same UNIX that was originally released from Bell Labs.
The world's best artists are irrelevant? when they play them everyday for 50 years? Perhaps Peter Jackson shouldn't have made a film on a 50 year old book trilogy?
UNIX has been around for 32 years, so what if it's called BSD, Linux or OS X. It's still unix.
> That UNIX is long dead, and there's no reason why the code from that shouldn't be public domain. Same thing with Linux -- the Linux kernel available today differs significantly from that 5 years ago.
If unix is dead why is it still in active use by millions of people? Why do millions choose every year to get new unix operating systems?
The main difference with linux today is mainstream acceptance & Linus Torvalds has a real job.
> MS Windows? Win95 and WinME were separated by 5 years, and have considerable differences beyond the GUI. No reason why Win95 shouldn't be public domain now.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=28522&c
> Sure, there are some books which sell for decades, even hundreds, of years after their release in significant numbers. But MOST DON'T.
How about Shakespeare, Aesop Fable's, the bothers Grim, K Marx, Freud, George Orwell, Arthur C Clark, Isaac Asimov, JRR Tolkien?
I see no reason why people shouldn't be able to profit from their work for about a hundred years even if they don't sell many at the beggining.
> And even for those that do, an author and (after he's dead) his family shouldn't be able to profit for a hundred+ years on somewthing which only took a few years to create.
Why not be honest enough to pay for a valuable book? clearly a classic work is worth paying for.
> No significant extra incentive is provided to authors by promising them life +75 years profit -- certainly not enough to offset the loss the public suffers from these works being controlled and unavailable to everyone.
I'm not argueing for life + 75, I want life + 25 or 50 years from publication. The works will be available in the library before the public "suffers"
>Your arguments that the "family" deserve to profit off of an artists work is ridiculous.
Really ? I suppose no rapper should have to pay for sampling a dead artist ? I suppose the family will have to survive on just the income of the living?
> Holding IP is like a title, a position. If I'm a professor at a university, I have the right to that position, but not the right to pass it onto my son -- who doesn't deserve it and didn't work for it -- after I'm dead.
Actually most professors don't deserve the title or the position. Most of them have never done an honest days work in their life. Only a few professors I've met deserve their position.
> An author's "family" did not create his work, thus they don't deserve to hold the work's IP rights. America is, aside from a democracy, largely a meritocracy.
America is basically a monarchy, how else do you think George W Bush won Florida State? By a majority vote? By his merits, if any? Who is the Governor of Florida?
> As for "registration" for copyrights, patents, etc, who said it has to be expensive? The costs of registration could be paid for by the state. Registration IS necessary for copyrights, because copyrights are intended to cover ORIGINAL work.
Ok, I'd like you to find any government office which does paperwork for free. I'd like to see some lazy civil servants fly out of their offices on pigs.
> Under the current system, everything you say or write is automatically copyrighted... that's obsurd. I shouldn't be able to say some quick catchy phrase like, "We are all slowly, but surely, dying," copyright it and then sue someone else who says or writes that.
Not at all obsurd, you get automatic protection by law of any idea you have. It's not like the current President is going to have any need for it.
If you wanted to copyright a statement on Global Warming, then go right ahead. I suggest you copyright the next Presidential statement on the american plans to combat Global Warming. Do the world a favor.
> The idea of registration is to prevent people from trying to fraudulently copyright things which aren't original works, or which are trivial/insignificant.
I know about that, having personally had some companies fraudulently register works based on my original ideas.
> As for your talk of "living off 2 cents a copy from your works," you misunderstand my argument. I never said any such thing.
That's in the article, it refers to the mechanical copies compensation dating back to 1907. (piano roll copies)
> What I said is that artists should be able to profit -- for the alotted time -- off of their works, but not to control how their works are used. Compensation without control.
I only have an issue with the radically short time you and Lessig support. 50 or life + 25 is enough.
> Authors, for example, would be compensated for people who obtained their books, or read their books on TV, but would not have the right to prevent anyone from using their work in any way, so long as they were compensated.
This is reasonable as long as it's not plagiarism, which is how microsoft "innovates".
> You should also note that while having works transfer to the public domain quicker, while not allowing artists to capture the full market value of their works, also alleviates them from expenditures they would have to make themselves. True, they wouldn't be able to profit off of books for more than 15-20 years; but they would also have free access to any book of such age.
What rot, the expenditures can't be alleviated as easily as that. You want to cut off the profit just when it's made the effort worthwhile.
> The cost to them is more than made up for by the fact that they'd have less restricted, free access to much more information. But from your arguments, it seems like you think that artists and their families "deserve" to be compensated for an infinite period of time (practically speaking, from the authors pov, as he dies) for a work which took a finite amount of time and effort to create.
Life + 25 or 50 years isn't infinite, people deserve compensation for their property. Which is what your estate becomes when they inherit it, I was paid thousands of dollars which I inherited 20 years after my grandmother died.
You are argueing that my grandomother's shares should be state property because she died. That is theft of my rightful inheritance.
> This is clearly nonsense. If a woodsman carves a fine chest, which is artful and beatiful, that took a finite period of time to make; like in the case of a writer, it also took some creative license. The woodsman does not get to profit off of the chair forever; he gets to sell it once and that's it.
If his family wanted to, they could sell his carving patterns to a factory after his death. I have carvings that were manufactured after the artist died and they are beautiful.
> There's no reason to elevate artists above working society such that they get paid the rest of their lives for work which took perhaps a year to create.
It's been a fact of life for thousands of years. Look at cave paintings, Homer, Shakespeare, Arthur C Clark, Gerge Orwell.
> For your clarification, let me post my suggestions for IP-protection terms for inventions, books, music, movies, and software.
[Your arguements has been so longwinded and mind-numbing that I took a swim over the road at my beach before I answered this part]
> 1. Software. Copyright should last 5 years. This allows the developer plenty of time to make a significant profit off of his program, and also puts the program in the public domain at a time in which it still has relevance and is not an artifact useful only for "educational purposes".
I would say a bare minimum of 25 years, this would prevent the spectre of mediocre code being revived by the GPL geeks.
The world would be a worse place if Richard Stallman's fans release Windows 98 GPL next year.
> 2. Music. Copyright should last 10 years. This allows the muscician plenty of time to make a significant profit off of his music, and also puts the music in the public domain at a time when most people can still easily relate to it.
Definately not, the last thing anyone wants is early nineties rap by Vanilla Ice becoming a standard sample in today's music.
The worse thing possible would be a comeback of Milli Vanilli in today's pop charts. It's bad enough we have Britney Spears and NSYNC today, I don't want that crap played again in 2012 by some jackass DJ.
> 3. Movies. Copyright protection should last 10 years. This allows the movie-producers plenty of time to make a significant profit off of their movie, and also puts the movie in the public domain at a time when it will still be culturally relevant.
How about all those movies which were made in the Cold War Era? The Soviet Union is no longer relevant, yet was a common theme in 1992.
How about Black Hawk Down, a current movie about the events in Somalia in October 1993?
I think the only movie which will be as culturally relevant in 2012 as it is in 2002 will be Lord of The Rings. Star Wars episode 2, maybe.
> 4. Books. Copyright protection should last 20 years. This allows the author plenty of time to make a significant profit off of his book, and also puts the book in public domain at a time when it will still be culturally relevant to most people.
I think not, George Orwell's 1984 is still relevant, perhaps more so today than in 1948.
Books can retain cultural relevance well beyond 20 years, have you ever read Shakespeare?
> 5. Inventions. Patent protection should be afforded to individuals who actually invent something; there should not be patents on "life forms". Nor should corporate raiders in the US be able to patent something that was pioneered by indigenous peoples, but which the corporations contributed nothing to.
I agree wtih this part, people shouldn't patent DNA or turing's theeory of AI. see US patent 6,341,372 for an example of bad patents.
Native medicines shouldn't be patented, but I support the right of the Amazon Indians who want to be paid for the use of their medicines.
In New Zealand, the maori natives have spent $1 million on copyrighting a Made by Maori artist design, the logo cost $10 k, lawyers got the rest.
> Limited patent protection should last 15 years, and should be strict in its granting. Every trivial invention that comes along does not deserve a patent. Business methods do not deserve patents.
That is very reasonable, it's the law in New Zealand. We don't grant patents for "one-click-shopping" or pyramid shemes.
> Furthermore, patents should account for alternate and independant invention. Patents should not be awarded which give an inventor the rights over any invention which accomplishes a specific ends, only over his particular implementation.
That would permit the avoidance of the patent and would effectively remove the use of patents. Patents are supposed to cover implementations of new technology.
> Patents should also recognize the rights of "second comers". Many people may be working on a particular way to do something; just because one person comes up with a solution a day before the other 9 doesn't mean the other 9 should be locked out.
Not really, the other 9 could have just heard a rumor or found a reference to the original person's work.
> 6. Combination works. Any work somehow combining any combination of the aforementioned should be protected piecemeal.
I think that would cause a patchy coverage of the work, it would be better to have a flat limit on compilational works. Say 20 or 25 years.
> 7. The year by year extention plank, up to a maximum of 50% more time. If the owner of an IP work can show that they still make significant profits off of their work (i.e., perhaps 10% of the selling volume from the first year released), then they can get a yearly renewable extention.
Yearly renewal is too many and too costly, it's best done by 5 year chunks a few times.
> Remember, in the beginning, intellectual property protection as established by the Founding Fathers only last 14 years. There's nothing wrong with short protection terms; nor do they decrease innovation.
If you bothered to read the article by Lessig, you'd note that america was born as a pirate nation and didn't extend these rights to foreigners.
This was originally intended to freely use the British maps and charts by copying them for the War of Independance.
> Rather, they increase it by reducing the cost of entry...artists/inventors have a larger public-domain pool to draw from in making their work when shorter terms exist. Furthermore, short terms force creators to create more.
Registering with the government costs more than automatic registration. Forcing people to create new editions constantly is the main problem of companies like MicroSoft. Quality, not Quantity.
> One-time-wonders can't make money the rest of their lives off of one book, song, whatever; they have to continue producing things, continue working for most of their lives, just like the average person does.
I have no problem with NYSNC or Britney Spears being one time wonders, I just hope they make enough to buy their seats on the ISS space station and never come back.
Would you really argue in favor of continual torture by those artists working for their whole lives? Can you say Cher? Micheal Jackson?
I'm willing to do this software at cost, I'm willing to get this done without those spam companies buying me out.
What do you think? Would you be willing to pay $10 for no spam from known hosts?
I'll make it so you can add updated addresses to the spam log (if it really is spam)
You don't reply to spam with remove me, my brothr did that once and I get dozens of spam each week now.
Market forces apply to spam if people filter out spam before they read it. I frequently get spam which is offensive to me.
I have my mail program set to delete typical spam, I have a cable modem and my cpu is fast enough to not make this noticable.
Laws aren't needed, you just need a program that accesses a list of spammers to eliminate spam from your internet. look for spam host files.
I'll buy a Dual G6 110 GHz powermac, you'll be left with the Dell Pentium 7.
The Pentium 7 6.9 GHz has 1000 instructions in it's pipeline and also features "predictive stallman" to cope with the microsoft software ban.
Ever since microsoft lost it's source code rights, RMS has had windows under GPL. Stallman has now got a hardware function in the Pentium 7 which checks for GPL licenses in the binaries.
This has led to millions of professional windows users switching to Mac OS XI to avoid the limitations of a GPL system.
Not even President Al Gore can convince america in the benefits of windows GPL, intel is dying and nobody gives a damn anymore.
This chip proves that conventional computing can continue to reach at least 110 GHz, which should be enough to run MicroSoft Farsite when it's released in 2012.
By 2012, quantum computing should be well established, effectively giving computing at the speed of light.
Yes, a beowulf cluster of opennic root servers would be the best way of running this project.
I'd want to have multiple failsafe opennic, then you wouldn't have the single Tier 1 master server.
The way things stand now, opennic is fscked if Oakland has another power blackout.
OS X is based on BSD, OS X has at least 3.5 million paid users. Probably 7 million total uers.
Linux would be lucky to have 70 thousand users, if that. Linux is Dying. And nobody buys transmet chips.
I've worked on IP for half my life, doing video productions of local events, weddings, concerts, etc.
I'm happy to only use copyright, I didn't even want to patent a major e-commerce system I developed that got stolen 4 years ago.
The thing is, I'm actually in favor of capitalism not corporatism. Which is why I oppose most the IP ideas Lessig has.
I see no reason why this silly idea of registering with the government would work, you'd only get copyright for the rich companies.
I see no reason I should not patent my new technology if it's new, innovative and not obvious. Why not make my discoveries pay for the cost of research and development?
That is how patents are supposed to work, as Benjamin Franklin originally intended.
Why do you think software changes radically in just 5 years? Only microsoft claims that is true. Radical changes in software are usually too buggy to work first time.
Ideas are not clothes, clothes can wear out in 5 years but ideas can be used until they are updated.
How is the copyright on my video recordings of events like weddings or concerts in the public interest? I'd like to know how the records of the local basketball team 10 years ago is useful to the public.
The only video work I've done that could be considered public interest was the first internet concert and the first midnight mass broadcast over the internet. Any interest would be purely academic, not personal interest.
I was at those events, and would rather have watched paint dry or gone to a funeral than watch the whole thing.
I have students asking me to sell a 13 year old computer book, it's in high demand as the definition of the topic covered.
I don't even know if the author is dead, but I'd be happy to pay for reprints of his work if the profits went to his family.
I said life + 25 or 50 years, whichever is longer. This would be mean Elvis is going into public domain now, while his fans are still living.
Ok, you try to live off 2 per mechanical copy. See how much you get from faxes and emails of your works.
Would you like it if your favorite author's family had to sell off the author's original works just to have enough money for their children?
I think you've bought into a shallow arguement by a 2 bit law professor. You might as well say:
All Your Ideas Are Belong To USA!
This is merely a reason to adopt http://www.opennic.unrated.net/">open nic as a viable alternative DNS.
Why don't you accept that an excess of corporate or governement control of the internet DNS would lead to censorship, regardless of the fascist or communist policies.
Freedom is the freedom to say 2 + 2 = 4.
George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four.