Be careful how you word that. What one considers _FUN_, another can consider patent/trademark/copyright infringement, or illegal, immoral, or downright wrong.
Truer words were never spoken. Just ask these people.:)
Do you think that they (the charities and other non-profits) are so financially inept that you must save them from themselves by demanding that a choice be removed from the market, for their own good?
That's an interesting attempt to flip the script. Well done. However I don't believe anyone wants to eliminate choice...choice is a good thing for customers. In fact, I'm pretty sure that it's Microsoft that's more opposed to choice...they sure seem to be scared that people will find out that there actually is a choice when it comes to software.
Do I think that NPOs are inept? Absolutely not. I do believe that a great many of them are, however, ignorant of and oblivious to their options and I believe that Microsoft is perfectly happy to keep them that way.
The problem with this is that forcing SCO to disclose evidence in a civil trial before the appropriate time will harm their ability to make their case against IBM in court.
I think that is an incredibly oxymoronic statement. If the public disclosure of evidence threatens the merits of a civil lawsuit, the grounds of that lawsuit should be questioned...publicly.
Yet another infinite while() loop in the legal code?
Yes, it's all part of the "get it to work first and THEN focus on performance" mentality.
Exactly! The rate of technological innovation these days seems to present a recursive problem for business as usual. Do we rush to market with known bugs in our product/service or do we focus on quality, let the other guy beat us to market, and hope that the quality of our product can overcome the initial mindshare grab made by our competitor?
It's interesting that the decisions made by MBAs tend to dictate the direction of hackers with or without degrees. If there is one group of people that should be required to eat their own dogfood, it is the people that supervise, appraise, and otherwise manage those that get work done.
I always thought hackers were defined by what they do rather than how they learned to do it...
A common misconception popularized by the mass media who find it inconvenient to distinguish hackers from crackers.
Hacking is simply deriving pleasure from the process of discovery. It's a process that encompasses numerous activities, some good and some not-so-good. As such, the AC you replied to is incorrect. Training is an excellent thing for any hacker...consider how often we "train" each other right here in these forums.
I don't believe that you deserve to be flamed for stating your opinion and observations, Irishman, but I think you should widen your scope.
What my degree did teach me was how to analyse a problem and not always go with the obvious solution. I have never met a self-taught person who has done an order analysis of an algorithm or searched for an optimal mechanism to implement beyond the obvious.
My experience has been different, or perhaps my perspective differs from yours. I have found self-taught programmers to be very practical when it comes to solving a problem. I don't mean to disparage your degree but in a crunch, I prefer a programmer that can address the issue at hand over one that requires time to perform "an order analysis of an algorithm". When it comes to long-term-analysis or development, I'll give more weight to a CS degree. But when I need a fix _right now_, give me a hacker that knows the system and damn the torpedoes...full speed ahead!:)
I am not saying that a self-taught person cannot be as capable or moreso that a university experienced person. What I am saying is that on balance, the number of very poor self-taught people far outweighs the number of very good self-taught people.
I can understand and agree with you on that point. But I happen to work with a very intelligent person with a CS degree that could not install a network printer in Windows 2000, so I think the opposite might also be true.
I am self-taught and I tried college. I gave it up because I got tired of teaching the computer classes and I couldn't afford to quit my job to pursue my dream of studying at MIT.
I don't base the worth or ability of anyone upon a degree because I have learned that it's the person that matters more than their credentials.
--K.
Re:The situation's aren't comparable.
on
RIAA vs The Economy
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
>>CD burners have been available longer than P2P and don't seem to have hurt them much.
>>Oh, and the movie industry seems to do allright with video tapes.
These are both analogous to the above. Video tapes suffer from analog copying especially badly, since a standard VHS tape is only half TV resolution to begin with, and who ever paid the money for Super VHS?
I'm not sure if you intended to make this kind of Valenti-esque slip in your reply, but you state that both CD copies and VHS tape copies are analogous to cassette tape copies. You then proceed to support your VHS claim (and I fully agree with that comparison) while (conveniently?) failing to demonstrate how CD copies are analogous to tape copies (where physical media cost is the only thing I find analogous between the two).
Of course, this entire discussion is rather academic given that the entertainment industry has repeatedly failed to prove their losses and history has repeatedly failed to bear out their dire predictions.
Great questions, but you seem to have arrived at some foregone, unproven, conclusions.
Would we be better off without Copyright?
I've read opinions that span history and that range from support for perpetual copyright to support for no copyright at all. I think the guys that wrote the Constitution struck a balance by allowing copyright, but only for "limited times". Their choice of verbage has proven unfortunate, because in Eldred vs. Ashcroft the Supreme Court has granted Congress the power to extend copyright terms perpetually so long as the law never actually uses the word "perpetual".
If millions of people are willing to physically buy a Britney Spears CD, that indicates that Britney Spears's music has economic value, because people don't enter into an economic exchange unless they gain something from the transaction. Therefore, would we be better off without Britney Spears?
[insert Britney joke here]:) What makes you think that the same millions of people would be unwilling to physically purchase music in a P2P environment? Surely you've read the thorough debunking of the RIAA's "piracy" claims.
If everyone stole music instead of paying for it, there would be no incentive to create much of the music we have today. Musicians have to eat, and they shouldn't need to beg (or rely on generosity) to make a living when their product has legitimate economic value.
How about we use the more accurate terminology of "infringement" instead of theft. Music isn't stolen...it is shared and the copyrights are sometimes infinged upon. And I agree that we need to reward musicians so that they don't have to beg or rely on generosity. But I'm still waiting for proof that song-swapping puts artists in the poorhouse.
Since not everyone steals music, those that pay effectively subsidise those that don't. Does that make those that pay stupid, does it make the publishers evil, or does it make the thieves twice the thieves they thought they were?
Since not everyone steals clothing, those that pay effectively subsidise those that don't. Does that make those that pay stupid, does it make Dillards evil, or does it make the thieves twice the thieves they thought they were?
Does that clarify the fallacy of the premise that copying = theft? Don't get me wrong, copyright infingement is theft...but it's a new kind of theft and any attempt to analogize digital copyright infringement to the theft of physical property only hinders the debate and thus prolongs a resolution.
If you could steal a car, without imposing any economic loss on the car manufacturer, would that make it Ok? How would you decide fairly who gets to steal the car?
Again, you're applying meatspace laws to digital concepts but that's still a good question when put into the proper context: If you could drive your friend's Porsche into a cloning bay and get your own clone for free, should that be legal? My bet is that the automative services companies would love the increased business while the dealers and car-makers slowly went out of business.
So the million dollar question in that scenario becomes: Would automotive innovation cease? I doubt it. Now translate all this back to the entertainment industry and you have MHO.:)
And keyboards! Until recently, I had always used Microsoft mice but that IBM optical mouse (with the blue wheel) finally won me over.
Come to think of it, Microsoft releases some damn fun games too. I can't wait until they realize that they should start porting them to *nix to prop up their profits.
I'm a "consumer" and here is me giving you self-important assholes the finger
"With all due respect to your assertions", I believe that that's the root of the problem right there.
So how do we resolve this fundamental disconnect between "you self-important assholes" (no real offense intended, just trying to convey the sense that I'm getting from my environment) and the people you depend upon for revenue?
If I had to give advice to Jack Valenti and Cary Sherman today, I would tell them to set themselves on fire....errr, ok if I had to give them GOOD advice I would tell them to just back the hell off and learn from the VCR.
Copyright law is a privilege that we the people grant to the entertainment industry. I really encourage folks to research it because the spirit of copyright is being turned upside down because of an apathetic public that seems to be more willing to break a bad law than repeal it.
I think it's about time ISP's started charging for each e-mail both sent and received, somewhat like stamps. Something tells me the elasticity looks very vertical in this market and a small cost will do wonders for reducing spam.
True, but the side-effect would also be the death of legitimate mailing lists. I like to read Politech and I like it that/. can notify about replies and mods. I'm more willing to suffer with spam for those benefits than I would be to pay for every email I send while losing all of my legitimate, requested email services.
First of all though, I'd like to ask a question: Is it right for someone to download for free and use something that they would normally have to pay for to obtain?
You're close to the root of the problem...define "right".
It's not an attempt to fork the debate, the two rely on the same logical framework in law and I believe the two to be backed up by the same logic. You protect people's right to obtain returns from creating original work that, by its very nature, is unprotectable technologically. You create a legal framework where no natural one exists in order to provide the incentive to create to people, by guaranteeing their ability to gain returns from that creation. The use of filesharing today undermines that ability by circumventing the law.
With all due respect to your assumptions and assertions, I believe that the policy has been decided. Our legal framework is not consistent with our societal norms.
You miss my point (I think). I'm not saying the industyr as a whole is losing money. I'm saying that if you downloaded the song, you should have paid them (say) $2.50, and that if you didn't, but still own the song now, they are $2.50 out of pocket. Multiply by the number of songs copied per day and there you go. It's not a grey area that if you weren't going to buy it anyway you are justified in getting it for free, you should be doing without it. If you're getting it at all then you're getting value from that ownership, and you should be paying the price they demand for it. The consumer doesn't set the price, the supplier does, and if you don't like the price, you do without the product. Law 101.
The consumer doesn't set the price, the supplier does, and if you don't like the price, you do without the product. Law 101.
I'm a "consumer" and here is me giving you self-important assholes the finger:,,!,,
It's unfortunate that some moron moderated you Off-topic...let's hope Meta-Mod screws their karma.
They don't need to prove their losses compared to an alternative scenario. There's a fundamental misconception there.
Why shouldn't any entity that claims another entity is depriving them of any resource have to prove the loss that they claim? Is that premise what you believe to be a "fundamental misconception"?
1) You think this is a victimless crime. That by stealing this song, and claiming that you would never have downloaded it had you had to pay for it, nobody has lost any money, and therefore that makes it Ok for you to download this song, listen to it and share it with anyone else who wants to download it.
No, I do NOT believe that this is a victimless crime. I just can't seem to find the victim. There's just no proof to support the claims being made by the entertainment companies. Provide definitive, OBJECTIVE data that proves that the P2P networks are negatively impacting the entertainment industry and I'll STFU.
Well you know what, I'd use Linux if I had to pay for Windows, and since that's true I can go download Windows and use that instead, because since I'm not willing to pay for Windows, I can have it for free.
I don't understand what you meant with that statement. Language barrier?
If you want something someone else has produced, and the benefits that go along with possession of that item/good/service, you pay for it. If you don't pay, you don't get those benefits, because you don't get to own it.
You nailed the problem. The concepts of ownership and property are in a state of flux today because Joe_Normal disagrees with Joe_CEO when it comes to the value of digital bits. Joe_Normal has already made his intentions known. What remains a mystery to me is why Joe_CEO hasn't picked up on it yet.
2. Of course there are losses. Every time a song is downloaded, they are owed money, and if that money is not paid, that's a loss.
I don't like the way the music industry is set up these days - it doesn't give me the breadth of music I want and it doesn't support the types of artist that I like. I don't have anything against filesharing networks per se either, they're a cool innovative technology. But people obtaining copyrighted works without paying for them undermines some of the most basic principles the economy is based on: principles that promote development, innovation, creativity and design, and that encourage people to create valuable intellectual property in the first place.
Nice mix there. I'm totally with you when it comes to dissatisfaction with the music industry and I agree that filesharing networks are "a cool innovative technology". I agree with the principles of the law that encourage people from all walks of life to come up with new ideas. I reject your use of the term "intellectual property" because we're talking about copyright law here and "intellectual property" is too broad a brush for this debate because the term encompasses copyright, trademark, and patent law. It's a separate issue, but I consider the use of the term "intellectual property" to be a blatant attempt to fork a debate.
It's criminal and I think the people that do it should be sued.
Thanks for making my point: Criminals don't get sued, they are prosecuted. It is this blurring of the law that I am opposed to.
Filesharing of copyrighted digital property puts the choice of what to pay entirely in the consumers hands, and when you do that, people will pay nothing.
"Digital property"...great oxymoron. Heaven forbid that choice is given to the people that pay the bills of large companies. I buy bottled water. Now why do you think I spend my hard-earned money on a commodity that I'm already buying and that is freely available via my kitchen sink?
Seems like a nice justification for obtaining copies of copyrighted work.
A root-cause-analysis study of the problem of "digital piracy" would probably find that the laws are inconsistent with the accepted and normal behavior of society.
Most slashdotters (myself included) tend to vilify the RIAA and MPAA...because they're greedy assholes that deserve it. But we should also be working to change the laws that these tossers exploit.
It would be a great start if/when the entertainment cartels prove their losses. Until then, screw 'em. Jack is an idiot and until the dinosaurs running these companies can prove that P2P is cutting into their profits, all of their FUD is just that...Full Of Dung.
I'm glad we agree on the root cause of the problems we are facing today, that being general apathy. But I can't help but take exception with the following assertion:
software/business methods weren't something the USPTO did by choice, it was forced upon them by court decisions, it was something that inventors and corporations wanted, for good reason, but hasn't really benefited the public good like in other technologies.
Rather than quote verbatim from his book, I would point you to The Future of Ideas by Lawrence Lessig. In The Future of Ideas, Lessig explains how the USPTO did indeed allow software/business-method patents by choice and how a single court decision in the 80s opened the door to the quagmire we're facing today. Trust me, it's a relevant and interesting read even if IANAL.:)
I agree that pendancy and quality are problems, but no one seems to have a good solution.
Based upon what I have read, pendancy is a problem for copyright law more than it is for patent law. The "quality" of a patent claim is what needs the most scrutiny IMHO. Software patents stifle innovation and "business model" patents are absolutely absurd. The only people getting rich in this kind of environment are lawyers and CEOs.
Fixing this problem is a multi-tiered effort that always breaks down because some people, at some point, refuse to work together. We need to upgrade copyright law, patent law, trademark law (google on Bill Purdy and Politech), campaign financing, term limits...they're all so intertwined that reaching a compromise is an exercise in futility. The sheer size of the problem is enough to daunt people that just want to live their life and be left alone.
You can't patch apathy, and apathy is A Bad Thing(tm) for any government that claims to value the opinions of its citizens.
Prof, I don't understand your point (whether you agree or disagree with me).
From the article you posted:
Search and examination are integral parts of the same process. There is a synergy between the two functions that will be lost if they are separated. While searching, an examiner simultaneously becomes familiar with the state of the art and begins mentally formulating rejections to apply to the claimed invention.
I believe that this is a very large part of the problem because it seems obvious that the reviewers are not becoming "familiar with the state of the art" and they certainly don't seem to be "formulating rejections".
I don't mean to be obtuse. Please explain your position.
I repeat again, patent examiners are NOT paid by your tax dollars, the USPTO is one of 2 fully fee funded organizations in the government (the other is part of the FAA), so patent examiners are paid by the applicants in effect[snip]
Thanks for enlightening me. That makes the entire issue even more interesting. If the USPTO is "fully fee funded", the motive for the approval of absurd patents becomes even more damning. My job is to review patents and my paycheck depends upon my approval of patents. No wonder it's such a mess. It's governmental recursion of the worst kind and it needs to be fixed. And I disagree with your assertion that my tax dollars do not fund the USPTO. If the USPTO is a federal governmental agency, my tax dollars ARE being used if for no other reason than that that money pays the salaries of the people that oversee the office.
From your comments, it doesn't sound like you are an educated patent professional.
You are correct, I am not a "patent professional". And from your comments, I'm guessing that you are. Well, if that's the case, I won't apologize for questioning the mechanism that provides you with a job. The USPTO is out of control, as you yourself demonstrate with:
Additionally, there is a backlog of over 500,000 applications, that is there are cases filed 4 years ago which haven't even had a first examination on them and the PTO processes less than 500,000 applications a year so pendency will increase even more.
Talk about job security! Let's patent job descriptions as "business models" next...I really want to make anyone in a self-propagating job pay me royalties.
Try understanding more about the patent office, the massive number of forgein application filins and PCT (patent cooperation treaty filings which are supposed to help applications) before you post.
Try to understand how the current patent process is an utter failure in today's environment before offering advice. You should start with Lawrence Lessig's book The Future of Ideas.
The USPTO had no reason not to grant this patent as of yet.
Not to nitpick, but shouldn't we expect a little common sense from the people that we pay with our tax dollars? I mean come on, the whole "ignorance is bliss/we are overworked" excuse is really beginning to wear a little thin.
From the article:
The LLC lawyers are starting to work on what are called "claim charts" that track alleged infringement. Licensing terms are still being thrashed out.
A most insightful reply, and informative as well. I believe that we agree on most of these issues on an ideological level, but I think you're more pragmatic than I am...which is fine. And maybe our social backgrounds and/or beliefs are different...which is probably even better.
But even my best friends have been known to suffer momentary lapses of judgement. And there are numerous other cases where I might send something to my friend, and it would be unclear to him whether he's allowed to forward it or not. I only raised the spectre of the ex-girlfriend because it seemed to be a case where I most unambiguously did not my content forwarded. And I'd rather have a way to concretely enforce that restriction with a moderate level of confidence, than rely on my friend's reading and obeying whatever written instructions I attached to the photo.
The real issue surrounding DRM is control and I think you make that point very clearly with these statements. The "battle lines" seem to be drawn around trust versus control. I believe that those are the two sides of the balance when it comes to online justice. As an idealist, I favor trust and as a pragmatist you favor control (although I think you favor a balanced control...not utter control). Finding the balance between these two extremes is probably the best thing we can do for the future. (Of course, it doesn't help the debate when Intel's definition of DRM is described as "Trusted Computing".)
Also -- the truth of the matter is that I'm a homosexual.
I'm a heterosexual Christian with a Southern Baptist upbringing and yet here we are having an intelligent, civil discussion about technology. I fear we might be creating a Slashdot Paradox.:)
We buy cell phones that speak to only one network provider and use trivial encryption; we have no guarantee of privacy to begin with. Those of us unfortunate enough to be living in the United States of Ashcroft know with absolute certainty that everything we say, write or do with our cell phones is recorded and scanned for keywords as a matter of course.
"United States of Ashcroft"...ROFL! How appropriate given today's environment. I happen to work for a large telecom company and I can tell you that your privacy is equally violated with wireline phones. I have the ability to listen to every call placed in the USAshcroft. I also have a documented procedure to allow governmental agencies to listen to your calls. I don't have the time, interest, or ethical deficiency to listen to calls for fun and neither do my coworkers. And I have not been asked to perform an emergency call trace for the government in over 4 years.
So yes, of course you are correct that the centralized nature of cell phone service today obliviates any expectation of privacy.
Network connectivity and a central authority are both inherent to the platform, and we can be reasonably certain that any content made available to us will take advantage of that fact, and strictly enforce the licensing terms. Our cell phones are not a free or open platform to begin with.
And again, I totally agree with only one qualification...that's the case TODAY. At one time, only IBM offered the PC and customers were locked into them. At one time, mainframe vendors were incompatible. History tends to favor the end-to-end philosophy (the PC, the Web, GNU/Linux) where the control is decentralized.
By standardizing DRM description language, we at least are guaranteed a few sanity checks: if I want to give my ringtone to my friend who's using Cingular because I don't want it anymore, at least both of our networks speak the same DRM language. And if I do want to download some premium content, I will find that more is available to me because producers have greater confidence in the system. And if the same
Consider for a moment that when people could be taking pictures of you with their cell phones at any time and at any place, some basic rights management within this very limited domain of cell phones and messaging might be extremely beneficial.
I agree. But they could also be abused and, honestly, do _WE_ really need them?
Let's say I take a quick snap of myself and my new girlfriend, and send it off to my pal across town so he can see how much fun we're having. Do I want that image to reach my parents? Do I want my ex girlfriend to see it? How about my co-workers and enemies? I'd rather not, thanks.
This is one scenario where laws and DRM are not needed. If you send a snapshot to a friend and ask them not to forward it to anyone and they do it anyway...that's not a bloody friend and you would be wise to avoid sending them anything sensitive again.:) Now, if you just sent the snap to your mate without any request to keep it close, I think by most laws you would have no expectation of privacy and if they sent that photo on to an enemy or anyone else you'd be up a creek but (of course) IANAL so YMMV.:)
So DRM within this domain is more of a basic privacy tool than an Orwellian move to own your cell phone.
In a perfect world, I'd be thrilled to agree. But in the world I live in, large bodies of people whose job it is to make money have a nasty habit of adopting an "embrace and extend" attitude towards technologies that could potentially benefit most of us. Maybe I'm overly cynical or paranoid or maybe I just read/. too much.....or maybe there really are deep-pocketed interests in the world that want to control every aspect of your life.
I hope I didn't come off sarcastic because I don't mean to be. You make a great argument for the legitimacy of this technology and I agree with it. I just worry about the potential vectors for abuse by those who don't have the best interests of their customers in mind.
"The DMCA is just a symptom of trying to impose copyrights in the information age. If we don't get to the source of the problem, copyrights, we will forever be providing a revenue stream to those determined to impose controll over all information we use." a stupid statement. to make it intelligent it should read - "It is those determined to impose controll (sic) over all the information they OWN."
Since you're suggesting a correction to what you believe is a flawed belief, I'll assume that you're not a troll. Your corrected statement seems to assume that information can be owned. Ok. Let's test that theory: The sky is blue because blue lightwaves tend to be scattered by the elements of the Earth's atmosphere more than other wavelengths of light. Give me $1 billion dollars because that's the fee I require for that information. Pretty "stupid", huh?:)
you want civil disobedience? if you don't want to use copyrighted information, then don't. it's that simple. you don't like DCMA, then don't buy products protected by it.
That's almost a good idea, but I'm much more interested in seeing the DMCA repealed than I am in throwing my PC into the dumpster. Civil disobedience is not about avoiding bad laws; it is all about violating them on purpose in order to overload the judicial branch of American government to convince that branch to exercise its balance of power on the legislative branch and overturn laws that violate societal norms. Check out Thoreau (I sure hope I spelled his name right this time!) sometime. He had a clue.
but don't force people or companies to donate their property to the public so everything will be free. public ownership of private property (aka, communism) doesn't work.
If there's anyone forcing anyone else in this situation, it is the government forcing the public to adhere to the business models of corporations. And if you are equating the Constitutional freedoms of American citizens to communism, you are hereby flunked back to tenth grade American Government class. (You are, of course, excused if you're not an American.):)
If you were trolling, good one. You snagged me.:) If not, I hope that I've engaged your brain and not provoked your ego.
Slashdot Mirror
Truer words were never spoken. Just ask these people.
--K.
That's an interesting attempt to flip the script. Well done. However I don't believe anyone wants to eliminate choice...choice is a good thing for customers. In fact, I'm pretty sure that it's Microsoft that's more opposed to choice...they sure seem to be scared that people will find out that there actually is a choice when it comes to software.
Do I think that NPOs are inept? Absolutely not. I do believe that a great many of them are, however, ignorant of and oblivious to their options and I believe that Microsoft is perfectly happy to keep them that way.
--K.
I think that is an incredibly oxymoronic statement. If the public disclosure of evidence threatens the merits of a civil lawsuit, the grounds of that lawsuit should be questioned...publicly.
Yet another infinite while() loop in the legal code?
--K.
Yeah, an image of Kent flew through my head when I read that too....followed by an image of ESR himself. Now the nightmares are keeping me awake!
--K.
Exactly! The rate of technological innovation these days seems to present a recursive problem for business as usual. Do we rush to market with known bugs in our product/service or do we focus on quality, let the other guy beat us to market, and hope that the quality of our product can overcome the initial mindshare grab made by our competitor?
It's interesting that the decisions made by MBAs tend to dictate the direction of hackers with or without degrees. If there is one group of people that should be required to eat their own dogfood, it is the people that supervise, appraise, and otherwise manage those that get work done.
--K.
A common misconception popularized by the mass media who find it inconvenient to distinguish hackers from crackers.
Hacking is simply deriving pleasure from the process of discovery. It's a process that encompasses numerous activities, some good and some not-so-good. As such, the AC you replied to is incorrect. Training is an excellent thing for any hacker...consider how often we "train" each other right here in these forums.
I hope that clarifies the Hacker Ethic a bit.
--K.
My experience has been different, or perhaps my perspective differs from yours. I have found self-taught programmers to be very practical when it comes to solving a problem. I don't mean to disparage your degree but in a crunch, I prefer a programmer that can address the issue at hand over one that requires time to perform "an order analysis of an algorithm". When it comes to long-term-analysis or development, I'll give more weight to a CS degree. But when I need a fix _right now_, give me a hacker that knows the system and damn the torpedoes...full speed ahead!
I can understand and agree with you on that point. But I happen to work with a very intelligent person with a CS degree that could not install a network printer in Windows 2000, so I think the opposite might also be true.
I am self-taught and I tried college. I gave it up because I got tired of teaching the computer classes and I couldn't afford to quit my job to pursue my dream of studying at MIT.
I don't base the worth or ability of anyone upon a degree because I have learned that it's the person that matters more than their credentials.
--K.
I'm not sure if you intended to make this kind of Valenti-esque slip in your reply, but you state that both CD copies and VHS tape copies are analogous to cassette tape copies. You then proceed to support your VHS claim (and I fully agree with that comparison) while (conveniently?) failing to demonstrate how CD copies are analogous to tape copies (where physical media cost is the only thing I find analogous between the two).
Of course, this entire discussion is rather academic given that the entertainment industry has repeatedly failed to prove their losses and history has repeatedly failed to bear out their dire predictions.
--K.
Alas, no...but a geek can dream, right?
--K.
I've read opinions that span history and that range from support for perpetual copyright to support for no copyright at all. I think the guys that wrote the Constitution struck a balance by allowing copyright, but only for "limited times". Their choice of verbage has proven unfortunate, because in Eldred vs. Ashcroft the Supreme Court has granted Congress the power to extend copyright terms perpetually so long as the law never actually uses the word "perpetual".
[insert Britney joke here]
How about we use the more accurate terminology of "infringement" instead of theft. Music isn't stolen...it is shared and the copyrights are sometimes infinged upon. And I agree that we need to reward musicians so that they don't have to beg or rely on generosity. But I'm still waiting for proof that song-swapping puts artists in the poorhouse.
Since not everyone steals clothing, those that pay effectively subsidise those that don't. Does that make those that pay stupid, does it make Dillards evil, or does it make the thieves twice the thieves they thought they were?
Does that clarify the fallacy of the premise that copying = theft? Don't get me wrong, copyright infingement is theft...but it's a new kind of theft and any attempt to analogize digital copyright infringement to the theft of physical property only hinders the debate and thus prolongs a resolution.
Again, you're applying meatspace laws to digital concepts but that's still a good question when put into the proper context: If you could drive your friend's Porsche into a cloning bay and get your own clone for free, should that be legal? My bet is that the automative services companies would love the increased business while the dealers and car-makers slowly went out of business.
So the million dollar question in that scenario becomes: Would automotive innovation cease? I doubt it. Now translate all this back to the entertainment industry and you have MHO.
--K.
And keyboards! Until recently, I had always used Microsoft mice but that IBM optical mouse (with the blue wheel) finally won me over.
Come to think of it, Microsoft releases some damn fun games too. I can't wait until they realize that they should start porting them to *nix to prop up their profits.
--K.
They are.
Probably.
(Hey, he set 'em up! All I did was knock 'em down!)
--K.
So how do we resolve this fundamental disconnect between "you self-important assholes" (no real offense intended, just trying to convey the sense that I'm getting from my environment) and the people you depend upon for revenue?
If I had to give advice to Jack Valenti and Cary Sherman today, I would tell them to set themselves on fire....errr, ok if I had to give them GOOD advice I would tell them to just back the hell off and learn from the VCR.
Copyright law is a privilege that we the people grant to the entertainment industry. I really encourage folks to research it because the spirit of copyright is being turned upside down because of an apathetic public that seems to be more willing to break a bad law than repeal it.
--K.
True, but the side-effect would also be the death of legitimate mailing lists. I like to read Politech and I like it that
--K.
Yes, I expect Armageddon any moment...
You're close to the root of the problem...define "right".
With all due respect to your assumptions and assertions, I believe that the policy has been decided. Our legal framework is not consistent with our societal norms.
The consumer doesn't set the price, the supplier does, and if you don't like the price, you do without the product. Law 101.
I'm a "consumer" and here is me giving you self-important assholes the finger:
--K.
Why shouldn't any entity that claims another entity is depriving them of any resource have to prove the loss that they claim? Is that premise what you believe to be a "fundamental misconception"?
No, I do NOT believe that this is a victimless crime. I just can't seem to find the victim. There's just no proof to support the claims being made by the entertainment companies. Provide definitive, OBJECTIVE data that proves that the P2P networks are negatively impacting the entertainment industry and I'll STFU.
I don't understand what you meant with that statement. Language barrier?
You nailed the problem. The concepts of ownership and property are in a state of flux today because Joe_Normal disagrees with Joe_CEO when it comes to the value of digital bits. Joe_Normal has already made his intentions known. What remains a mystery to me is why Joe_CEO hasn't picked up on it yet.
Prove it.
Nice mix there. I'm totally with you when it comes to dissatisfaction with the music industry and I agree that filesharing networks are "a cool innovative technology". I agree with the principles of the law that encourage people from all walks of life to come up with new ideas. I reject your use of the term "intellectual property" because we're talking about copyright law here and "intellectual property" is too broad a brush for this debate because the term encompasses copyright, trademark, and patent law. It's a separate issue, but I consider the use of the term "intellectual property" to be a blatant attempt to fork a debate.
Thanks for making my point: Criminals don't get sued, they are prosecuted. It is this blurring of the law that I am opposed to.
"Digital property"...great oxymoron. Heaven forbid that choice is given to the people that pay the bills of large companies. I buy bottled water. Now why do you think I spend my hard-earned money on a commodity that I'm already buying and that is freely available via my kitchen sink?
--K.
A root-cause-analysis study of the problem of "digital piracy" would probably find that the laws are inconsistent with the accepted and normal behavior of society.
Most slashdotters (myself included) tend to vilify the RIAA and MPAA...because they're greedy assholes that deserve it. But we should also be working to change the laws that these tossers exploit.
It would be a great start if/when the entertainment cartels prove their losses. Until then, screw 'em. Jack is an idiot and until the dinosaurs running these companies can prove that P2P is cutting into their profits, all of their FUD is just that...Full Of Dung.
--K.
Rather than quote verbatim from his book, I would point you to The Future of Ideas by Lawrence Lessig. In The Future of Ideas, Lessig explains how the USPTO did indeed allow software/business-method patents by choice and how a single court decision in the 80s opened the door to the quagmire we're facing today. Trust me, it's a relevant and interesting read even if IANAL.
--K.
Based upon what I have read, pendancy is a problem for copyright law more than it is for patent law. The "quality" of a patent claim is what needs the most scrutiny IMHO. Software patents stifle innovation and "business model" patents are absolutely absurd. The only people getting rich in this kind of environment are lawyers and CEOs.
Fixing this problem is a multi-tiered effort that always breaks down because some people, at some point, refuse to work together. We need to upgrade copyright law, patent law, trademark law (google on Bill Purdy and Politech), campaign financing, term limits...they're all so intertwined that reaching a compromise is an exercise in futility. The sheer size of the problem is enough to daunt people that just want to live their life and be left alone.
You can't patch apathy, and apathy is A Bad Thing(tm) for any government that claims to value the opinions of its citizens.
--K.
From the article you posted:
I believe that this is a very large part of the problem because it seems obvious that the reviewers are not becoming "familiar with the state of the art" and they certainly don't seem to be "formulating rejections".
I don't mean to be obtuse. Please explain your position.
--K.
Thanks for enlightening me. That makes the entire issue even more interesting. If the USPTO is "fully fee funded", the motive for the approval of absurd patents becomes even more damning. My job is to review patents and my paycheck depends upon my approval of patents. No wonder it's such a mess. It's governmental recursion of the worst kind and it needs to be fixed. And I disagree with your assertion that my tax dollars do not fund the USPTO. If the USPTO is a federal governmental agency, my tax dollars ARE being used if for no other reason than that that money pays the salaries of the people that oversee the office.
You are correct, I am not a "patent professional". And from your comments, I'm guessing that you are. Well, if that's the case, I won't apologize for questioning the mechanism that provides you with a job. The USPTO is out of control, as you yourself demonstrate with:
Talk about job security! Let's patent job descriptions as "business models" next...I really want to make anyone in a self-propagating job pay me royalties.
Try to understand how the current patent process is an utter failure in today's environment before offering advice. You should start with Lawrence Lessig's book The Future of Ideas.
--K.
Not to nitpick, but shouldn't we expect a little common sense from the people that we pay with our tax dollars? I mean come on, the whole "ignorance is bliss/we are overworked" excuse is really beginning to wear a little thin.
From the article:
Claim charts??!!
rm -rf USPTO
kill -9 patent_squatter
--K.
The real issue surrounding DRM is control and I think you make that point very clearly with these statements. The "battle lines" seem to be drawn around trust versus control. I believe that those are the two sides of the balance when it comes to online justice. As an idealist, I favor trust and as a pragmatist you favor control (although I think you favor a balanced control...not utter control). Finding the balance between these two extremes is probably the best thing we can do for the future. (Of course, it doesn't help the debate when Intel's definition of DRM is described as "Trusted Computing".)
I'm a heterosexual Christian with a Southern Baptist upbringing and yet here we are having an intelligent, civil discussion about technology. I fear we might be creating a Slashdot Paradox. :)
"United States of Ashcroft"...ROFL! How appropriate given today's environment. I happen to work for a large telecom company and I can tell you that your privacy is equally violated with wireline phones. I have the ability to listen to every call placed in the USAshcroft. I also have a documented procedure to allow governmental agencies to listen to your calls. I don't have the time, interest, or ethical deficiency to listen to calls for fun and neither do my coworkers. And I have not been asked to perform an emergency call trace for the government in over 4 years.
So yes, of course you are correct that the centralized nature of cell phone service today obliviates any expectation of privacy.
And again, I totally agree with only one qualification...that's the case TODAY. At one time, only IBM offered the PC and customers were locked into them. At one time, mainframe vendors were incompatible. History tends to favor the end-to-end philosophy (the PC, the Web, GNU/Linux) where the control is decentralized.
I agree. But they could also be abused and, honestly, do _WE_ really need them?
This is one scenario where laws and DRM are not needed. If you send a snapshot to a friend and ask them not to forward it to anyone and they do it anyway...that's not a bloody friend and you would be wise to avoid sending them anything sensitive again.
In a perfect world, I'd be thrilled to agree. But in the world I live in, large bodies of people whose job it is to make money have a nasty habit of adopting an "embrace and extend" attitude towards technologies that could potentially benefit most of us. Maybe I'm overly cynical or paranoid or maybe I just read
I hope I didn't come off sarcastic because I don't mean to be. You make a great argument for the legitimacy of this technology and I agree with it. I just worry about the potential vectors for abuse by those who don't have the best interests of their customers in mind.
--K.
Since you're suggesting a correction to what you believe is a flawed belief, I'll assume that you're not a troll. Your corrected statement seems to assume that information can be owned. Ok. Let's test that theory: The sky is blue because blue lightwaves tend to be scattered by the elements of the Earth's atmosphere more than other wavelengths of light. Give me $1 billion dollars because that's the fee I require for that information. Pretty "stupid", huh?
That's almost a good idea, but I'm much more interested in seeing the DMCA repealed than I am in throwing my PC into the dumpster. Civil disobedience is not about avoiding bad laws; it is all about violating them on purpose in order to overload the judicial branch of American government to convince that branch to exercise its balance of power on the legislative branch and overturn laws that violate societal norms. Check out Thoreau (I sure hope I spelled his name right this time!) sometime. He had a clue.
If there's anyone forcing anyone else in this situation, it is the government forcing the public to adhere to the business models of corporations. And if you are equating the Constitutional freedoms of American citizens to communism, you are hereby flunked back to tenth grade American Government class. (You are, of course, excused if you're not an American.)
If you were trolling, good one. You snagged me.
--K.