A report on Cringely claims that the use of raw sockets in XP is just to make network security so bad that Microsoft needs to replace TCP/IP with its own, more secure protocol (part of.NET). This protocol will be part of its.NET secure architecture, which means no unsupported media types allowed (bye bye Quicktime and Real. Also, bye bye MP3 as Windows Media Player doesn't support that).
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit2001081 6. html
Having a security guy in the White House means that the government will hear exactly why the problem is with TCP/IP and the only way to improve on the virus problem is to switch to the secure environment of.NET, which needs Microsoft transport protocols of course (more secure).
I'll say the same thing I said on http://www.winterspeak.com:
We all agree that current software patent laws are completely stupid and corrupt. But they're not going to go away anytime soon. So until then the above may be the best solution. Since patents have to be licensed equally to all organizations, no one company can try to shut out another through patents. So if Microsoft tried to use its patents to stop development in one area, it would have to hurt Red Hat, Sun, IBM, etc. equally. Under RAND, it seems, cross-licensing under discriminatory terms is no longer OK. The software patent system just sounds like a big mexican standoff to me.
Music publishers are free to cripple their CDs if they want. After all, whether we like it or not, they own the copyrights to that music. The cost of encrypting content and fighting piracy is just part of doing business, like tax. If a business with a different cost structure based on freely distributing digital content (and so does not incur these costs) can be more profitable, then that's fine. Marillion seemed to do something like this in Michael Lewis's book "Next".
It's when bills like the SSSCA and DMCA come about that effectively subsidise the cost of preventing piracy by pushing it onto hardware manufacturers or consumers that it's no longer OK. Companies should have to pay the full cost of executing their business model, and it costs to impose scarcity on goods that are naturally non-scarce.
Ultimately the customer should decide which competitive business offers them the most value. They should clearly label their CDs with what can or cannot be done with them, and then people can choose to buy them or go to unrestricted CDs.
You don't need complicated legal or moral rhetoric to see through the current (flawed) "IP" debate. Straight economics will do.
For scarce, excludable goods (like chairs) it makes sense to have strong property laws because this gives society the information it needs (through price signals) to allocate its resources most efficiently. Consumers support what they want (and much they want it) by allocating money, letting producers know what to make more off and what to make less of.
For non-scarce, non-excludable goods (like ideas, code, music etc...) you don't need property laws in the same way because society does not need to reallocate resources based on market demand. If I have an idea and I share it with you, now we both have it. There is no scarcity that needs to be managed. Therefore, society benefits MOST when all ideas exist in the public domain for everyone to use as they wish.
Copyright law was created to HELP PUT IDEAS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. By giving IP producers TEMPORARY monopoly and ownership on their ideas, the thinking went, they would have more incentive to come up with ideas. Copyright law NOT originally conceived to give IP producers ownership of their work, nor was it conceived to ensure IP producers can make money off their ideas. Its original intent was to help society produce more ideas for the intellectual commons.
The point isn't "ideas should be free" vs. "ideas are property". Copyright was, and should be about structuring society so it creates more ideas for the public domain. Everything else is details on how to implement that society structure best. This is an economic argument, not a moral or legal one. If keeping ideas OUT of the public domain for a limited time helps create more ideas for it in the longer run, then that's cool.
Obviously, copyright has moved so far from this original intent that people think of ideas as property, and even folks supporting freedom of expression base their arguments on competing ownership and fair use rights, missing the central economic driver at the heart of all of this: how do we structure society so that it generates the maximum ongoing amount of ideas that enrich the public domain.
Copyright used to be a friend of the intellectual commons. It should be made a friend again.
Slashdot Mirror
:begin conspiracy theory
.NET). This protocol will be part of its .NET secure architecture, which means no unsupported media types allowed (bye bye Quicktime and Real. Also, bye bye MP3 as Windows Media Player doesn't support that).
1 6. html
.NET, which needs Microsoft transport protocols of course (more secure).
A report on Cringely claims that the use of raw sockets in XP is just to make network security so bad that Microsoft needs to replace TCP/IP with its own, more secure protocol (part of
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit200108
Having a security guy in the White House means that the government will hear exactly why the problem is with TCP/IP and the only way to improve on the virus problem is to switch to the secure environment of
:end conspiracy theory
I'll say the same thing I said on http://www.winterspeak.com:
We all agree that current software patent laws are completely stupid and corrupt. But they're not going to go away anytime soon. So until then the above may be the best solution. Since patents have to be licensed equally to all organizations, no one company can try to shut out another through patents. So if Microsoft tried to use its patents to stop development in one area, it would have to hurt Red Hat, Sun, IBM, etc. equally. Under RAND, it seems, cross-licensing under discriminatory terms is no longer OK. The software patent system just sounds like a big mexican standoff to me.
Music publishers are free to cripple their CDs if they want. After all, whether we like it or not, they own the copyrights to that music. The cost of encrypting content and fighting piracy is just part of doing business, like tax. If a business with a different cost structure based on freely distributing digital content (and so does not incur these costs) can be more profitable, then that's fine. Marillion seemed to do something like this in Michael Lewis's book "Next".
It's when bills like the SSSCA and DMCA come about that effectively subsidise the cost of preventing piracy by pushing it onto hardware manufacturers or consumers that it's no longer OK. Companies should have to pay the full cost of executing their business model, and it costs to impose scarcity on goods that are naturally non-scarce.
Ultimately the customer should decide which competitive business offers them the most value. They should clearly label their CDs with what can or cannot be done with them, and then people can choose to buy them or go to unrestricted CDs.
zimran
http://www.winterspeak.com
You don't need complicated legal or moral rhetoric to see through the current (flawed) "IP" debate. Straight economics will do.
For scarce, excludable goods (like chairs) it makes sense to have strong property laws because this gives society the information it needs (through price signals) to allocate its resources most efficiently. Consumers support what they want (and much they want it) by allocating money, letting producers know what to make more off and what to make less of.
For non-scarce, non-excludable goods (like ideas, code, music etc...) you don't need property laws in the same way because society does not need to reallocate resources based on market demand. If I have an idea and I share it with you, now we both have it. There is no scarcity that needs to be managed. Therefore, society benefits MOST when all ideas exist in the public domain for everyone to use as they wish.
Copyright law was created to HELP PUT IDEAS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. By giving IP producers TEMPORARY monopoly and ownership on their ideas, the thinking went, they would have more incentive to come up with ideas. Copyright law NOT originally conceived to give IP producers ownership of their work, nor was it conceived to ensure IP producers can make money off their ideas. Its original intent was to help society produce more ideas for the intellectual commons.
The point isn't "ideas should be free" vs. "ideas are property". Copyright was, and should be about structuring society so it creates more ideas for the public domain. Everything else is details on how to implement that society structure best. This is an economic argument, not a moral or legal one. If keeping ideas OUT of the public domain for a limited time helps create more ideas for it in the longer run, then that's cool.
Obviously, copyright has moved so far from this original intent that people think of ideas as property, and even folks supporting freedom of expression base their arguments on competing ownership and fair use rights, missing the central economic driver at the heart of all of this: how do we structure society so that it generates the maximum ongoing amount of ideas that enrich the public domain.
Copyright used to be a friend of the intellectual commons. It should be made a friend again.
Zimran
http://www.winterspeak.com