My mother had a term for this - she called it "The Garage Door." She used to say that anytime you tried to talk to her about anything technical, something like a garage door seemed to close in her mind, and she would shut down from processing anything.
We got her a computer because she wanted to learn, and to surf the net. At first it was hard, things like when she saw me working in multiple windows she got confused - she always asked "what is going on? i don't understand." But I stuck to the very very basics of what she needed to know, and now she's great (and has gone beyond the basics)! For most things she doesn't have the "garage door" effect anymore, even in other technical areas (although it still crops up occassionally - but not on the computer). She uses a mouse like a pro, cuts-and-pastes just fine, etc. I attribute this "growth" to the fact that the world wide web was just too interesting for her not to use, so she learned.
Interestingly, the mouse seems to be the biggest issue with those of the "older generation" who are non-technical from what I've seen: my step-father sort of grabs the mouse with two hands and pushes it around.
Is this a potential solution (or part of one)?
on
RIAA to Sue You Now
·
· Score: 1
The recording industry seems to be incapable of offering a legal online music service. The main issue is that every service they try to offer involves restricting where and when the user can listen to the music they purchase online. Home users want to have the same freedom they have with a CD: play it on your stereo system, on your PC, in your car, on a portable player, wherever. The problem the industry has is that any kind of download that allows you to do that also allows you to make copies for other people, instead of having them buy their own copy.
BUT - how feasible would it be for a downloading music service provider to use steganography to watermark each downloaded file individually? You wouldn't prevent copying, allowing a purchaser to use the music wherever they feel like. But if the purchaser puts the file on a file-sharing service, it would be tracable to them. If the purchaser wanted, he or she could make copies of CDs for friends, but would need to be certain THEY won't make copies for anyone, because it would all lead back to the original purchaser.
This gives the industry a way to sell online music, gives the consumer a way to play the music when and where they want to, and also gives the industry a way to identify "pirates" and, if they want, sue them (had to bring it back to the original article somehow).
But is it feasible? How easily can steganographic watermarks be removed? What would the server-processing requirements be to individually (and uniquely) watermark each downloaded file?
(Also, I could easily see this being perverted into some kind of DRM system where music simply won't play if you don't have the proper digital key... but that kind of solution is always defeatable, which is why I'd lean towards forgetting about preventing people from playing and copying music, and concentrate just on the tracability).
I met these guys about a year and a half ago in NYC when I worked for a gaming company - at the time they were bank-rolled by a certain cell-phone company. They said that while their engine was being developed on an iPAQ, the eventual target platform was cellphones 3 years in the future that were then on the drawing boards - they didn't even plan to release anything until then. I was flabbergasted, I was so blown away by the demo they gave us. The first thing I asked was why they didn't show/sell this to Compaq, because it would be an incredible marketing tool for the iPAQ (no other PocketPC had the iPAQ's performance numbers at the time). In fact, it made me go out and buy one almost immediately thereafter, having seen what an iPAQ was capable of (I immediately ditched my old Palm V I bought at that JavaOne so long ago).
It seems at some point they did decide that perhaps selling it on the platform they developed it on was a good idea. Maybe they no longer have the funding from the cellphone company? I don't know.
These guys were once part of the hardcore demo scene, too, as is probably obvious from the performance they eek out of that tiny machine.
The problem is that, although frivolous suits will likely lose in court, in many cases the defendants are unable to pay to defend themselves. The plaintiff has the time and money, and the defendants don't, so they are forced to settle, even if their chances of winning in court are high. THIS kind of thing needs to be stopped. Some proposed recommendations involve all sorts of fines against the party that brought the case if it is determined to be frivolous (plus paying the defense legal fees), but the problem is that the defense still needs to money to get to that point. Deterrents like this stop lawsuits where the plaintiff KNOWS it is frivolous, not lawsuits where the plaintiff really believes.
It wasn't the standard starwars.com link. It was to the site at holonetnews.com which pretends to be a website in the Star Wars universe. Granted, this isn't the first film to have websites in its fictional universe, but I was surprised at some of the humor in it. A lot of web-specific humor like the "click the nuna" banner ad. Didn't expect it from Lucasfilm.
Slashdot Mirror
My mother had a term for this - she called it "The Garage Door." She used to say that anytime you tried to talk to her about anything technical, something like a garage door seemed to close in her mind, and she would shut down from processing anything.
We got her a computer because she wanted to learn, and to surf the net. At first it was hard, things like when she saw me working in multiple windows she got confused - she always asked "what is going on? i don't understand." But I stuck to the very very basics of what she needed to know, and now she's great (and has gone beyond the basics)! For most things she doesn't have the "garage door" effect anymore, even in other technical areas (although it still crops up occassionally - but not on the computer). She uses a mouse like a pro, cuts-and-pastes just fine, etc. I attribute this "growth" to the fact that the world wide web was just too interesting for her not to use, so she learned.
Interestingly, the mouse seems to be the biggest issue with those of the "older generation" who are non-technical from what I've seen: my step-father sort of grabs the mouse with two hands and pushes it around.
The recording industry seems to be incapable of offering a legal online music service. The main issue is that every service they try to offer involves restricting where and when the user can listen to the music they purchase online. Home users want to have the same freedom they have with a CD: play it on your stereo system, on your PC, in your car, on a portable player, wherever. The problem the industry has is that any kind of download that allows you to do that also allows you to make copies for other people, instead of having them buy their own copy.
BUT - how feasible would it be for a downloading music service provider to use steganography to watermark each downloaded file individually? You wouldn't prevent copying, allowing a purchaser to use the music wherever they feel like. But if the purchaser puts the file on a file-sharing service, it would be tracable to them. If the purchaser wanted, he or she could make copies of CDs for friends, but would need to be certain THEY won't make copies for anyone, because it would all lead back to the original purchaser.
This gives the industry a way to sell online music, gives the consumer a way to play the music when and where they want to, and also gives the industry a way to identify "pirates" and, if they want, sue them (had to bring it back to the original article somehow).
But is it feasible? How easily can steganographic watermarks be removed? What would the server-processing requirements be to individually (and uniquely) watermark each downloaded file?
(Also, I could easily see this being perverted into some kind of DRM system where music simply won't play if you don't have the proper digital key... but that kind of solution is always defeatable, which is why I'd lean towards forgetting about preventing people from playing and copying music, and concentrate just on the tracability).
I met these guys about a year and a half ago in NYC when I worked for a gaming company - at the time they were bank-rolled by a certain cell-phone company. They said that while their engine was being developed on an iPAQ, the eventual target platform was cellphones 3 years in the future that were then on the drawing boards - they didn't even plan to release anything until then. I was flabbergasted, I was so blown away by the demo they gave us. The first thing I asked was why they didn't show/sell this to Compaq, because it would be an incredible marketing tool for the iPAQ (no other PocketPC had the iPAQ's performance numbers at the time). In fact, it made me go out and buy one almost immediately thereafter, having seen what an iPAQ was capable of (I immediately ditched my old Palm V I bought at that JavaOne so long ago).
It seems at some point they did decide that perhaps selling it on the platform they developed it on was a good idea. Maybe they no longer have the funding from the cellphone company? I don't know.
These guys were once part of the hardcore demo scene, too, as is probably obvious from the performance they eek out of that tiny machine.
The problem is that, although frivolous suits will likely lose in court, in many cases the defendants are unable to pay to defend themselves. The plaintiff has the time and money, and the defendants don't, so they are forced to settle, even if their chances of winning in court are high. THIS kind of thing needs to be stopped. Some proposed recommendations involve all sorts of fines against the party that brought the case if it is determined to be frivolous (plus paying the defense legal fees), but the problem is that the defense still needs to money to get to that point. Deterrents like this stop lawsuits where the plaintiff KNOWS it is frivolous, not lawsuits where the plaintiff really believes.
It wasn't the standard starwars.com link. It was to the site at holonetnews.com which pretends to be a website in the Star Wars universe. Granted, this isn't the first film to have websites in its fictional universe, but I was surprised at some of the humor in it. A lot of web-specific humor like the "click the nuna" banner ad. Didn't expect it from Lucasfilm.